CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
But the biblical god is not a maximally great being.
Take the example of a maximally great politician. This politician will be so great that everyone will listen to them and agree with them. They will have a perfect system of government.
A maximally great god would obviously have a hell of a lot more power, but the same would apply. Everyone worships and loves the maximally great god, and can find no fault with It. Nothing can stand up against this most powerful being, and nothing can soil it's harmonious kingdom, which, as this being is maximally great, would be everything.
Not at all. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates established that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, then it follows that God cannot gain anything from His creations, since everything His creations have and can give came from Him in the first place. So everyone liking God is irrelevant.
It is for our own good, since God is the greatest thing possible. Hence, God ordering us to worship Him is not egoistic. It is gracious, since it makes us focus on Him.
Just maybe it would be better to focus on ourselves?
Also, you say evil is the lack of God's presence. Evil, to most people is viewed as corruption. Christians believe God made humans... yet humans are corruptable. Evil is not only a matter of free will, it can be through a mental health issue- how is this fair, and the work of a maximally great being?
Just maybe it would be better to focus on ourselves?
If God is the greatest thing, and God is sovereign over all things, which means that we need not worry about safety or anything like that, then it follows that worshipping God is the best advised thing.
Also, you say evil is the lack of God's presence. Evil, to most people is viewed as corruption. Christians believe God made humans... yet humans are corruptable. Evil is not only a matter of free will, it can be through a mental health issue- how is this fair, and the work of a maximally great being?
We do not have free will. Evil is defined in Romans 3:23 as the falling short of the glory of God, which is to say not meeting up to His determined mark for humans, which is retaining the image of God. We intrinsically cannot do this unless God is with us, according to the Bible, since we are dead in our sins and slaves to sin (Ephesians 2, Ezekiel 37, Romans 6). We cannot do good (Romans 3). However, simply because God is sovereign over all things (Ephesians 1:11, 1 Corinthians 4:7, Acts 4:28), we can know that God intends it for good in absolution (Genesis 50L20, 1 John 4). He is patient with evil and allows evil in order for a greater good to come about: refer to Romans 9. Hence, God is still maximally great.
we need not worry about safety or anything like that
People die stupidly, get weak, get ignorant, and go into heavy debt on that philosophy. .'. it is a defunct philosophy. It is useless to real life, and can only be said by people who have never had to worry about where their next meal comes from, whether they've revised enough for an exam or if their coursework has covered all the points. It cannot be said truthfully by anyone who has ever looked left and right before crossing a road, or even walks with their eyes open.
He is patient with evil and allows evil in order for a greater good to come about
He's maximally great. He can make that greater good come about himself. It's not like we feel any better about doing it ourselves the hard way- especially if we have no free will.
Back to the old argument which I have never heard a decent justification for: We have no free will- you concurr. God is all knowing- you concurr. God created us with no free will- logical assumption. Humanity has killed, raped, tortured, destroyed, manipulated, ripped and sawed each other in half vertically , crucified... you get the graphically violent picture. It follows that God knew this was going to happen, and created us with the knowledge that this would happen if It created us this way, i.e. intended for this to happen.
People die stupidly, get weak, get ignorant, and go into heavy debt on that philosophy. .'. it is a defunct philosophy. It is useless to real life, and can only be said by people who have never had to worry about where their next meal comes from, whether they've revised enough for an exam or if their coursework has covered all the points. It cannot be said truthfully by anyone who has ever looked left and right before crossing a road, or even walks with their eyes open.
You trust God but jumping off of a building will kill you most likely. You trust in God and don't worry about safety. You don't willy nilly do whatever you want such as jumping into a fire; for that thought would have been preplanned by God to happen. Don't commit strawmen.
Back to the old argument which I have never heard a decent justification for: We have no free will- you concurr. God is all knowing- you concurr. God created us with no free will- logical assumption. Humanity has killed, raped, tortured, destroyed, manipulated, ripped and sawed each other in half vertically , crucified... you get the graphically violent picture. It follows that God knew this was going to happen, and created us with the knowledge that this would happen if It created us this way, i.e. intended for this to happen.
I already pointed you to Romans 9 and Genesis 50:20
He's maximally great. He can make that greater good come about himself. It's not like we feel any better about doing it ourselves the hard way- especially if we have no free will.
He could; He doesn't because of some greater purpose.
I'm not suggesting that you jump off a building, but walk around the top of one with a blindfold on.
He doesn't because of some greater purpose.
~And that would be?
I read romans 9... and it's horrible. If that truly is the word of the christian god, I'm glad I'm not a christian. I would be happy if I made a clay jar and it asked why it wasn't as pretty as the one next to it.
You do realize that you reading it and thinking it horrible is a good thing, correct? If we are completely evil and God is completely good, then it follows that we would hate many of God's ways. This verse about absolute sovereignty is unique to the Christian God. People make gods in their own images all the time. So because this passage grinds against us, it shows us that this God is not a God that we have made into our own image and is one that is alive and active.
Thats why we trust Him. We have faith that He is good; from that, whatever He does will intrinsically be good, whether we know it or not. I don't know why something happen but I do know they happen for a reason. (Romans 8:28)
Everyone sucks at being a Christian, which is why we cannot judge anyone, not even ourselves as to whether or not we are Christians or not. Thats why Christ came! If a lack of belief is the root of all unbelief, as the Bible states, then Christ came to die for those with unbelief. Moses doubted God and had a burning bush in front of him, had the Red Sea part in front of him, etc. Peter doubted God and saw Jesus do miracles in front of him. We all doubt God! Thats why God had Peter doubt Him, to show the world that even the Apostles doubted God... Don't worry about whether you have faith or not; simply have faith!
I read romans 9... and it's horrible. If that truly is the word of the christian god, I'm glad I'm not a christian. I would be happy if I made a clay jar and it asked why it wasn't as pretty as the one next to it.
But you do realize that you reading it and thinking it horrible is a good thing correct? If we are completely evil and God is completely good, then it follows that we would hate many of God's ways. This verse about absolute sovereignty is unique to the Christian God. People make gods in their own images all the time. So because this passage grinds against us, it shows us that this God is not a God that we have made into our own image and is one that is alive and active.
Most christians, and all the ones I know, believe there is free will. Most abrahamic reigions go for the absolute sovereignity thing. You could say the way North koreans treat their leaders is religious, and involves absolute sovereignity of the leader... by what the Panorama documentary shows. Most tyrannical dictatorships have this, I think.
Islam professes free will. Ra'd {13:11} "Verily never will God change the condition of a people until they change it themselves" Most Christians are also wrong in reference to the Bible. The Bible is very clear that there is no such thing as absolute free will; we have free will in the sense that I perceive myself to be free, which is where our true freedom arises: faith that we are not free but perceive ourselves to actually be. Most monotheistic religions claim an all-powerful God but do not take the logical step to absolute sovereignty. The only close one is the Bahá’í Faith, which claims that God has never created an evil spirit. http://www.bahai.us/2012/07/02/the-concept-of-evil-in-the-bahai-faith/
Christianity is the only religion that I have ever heard to profess absolute sovereignty for its God.People want God in their own image, so free will is a fundamental part of religion, other than Christianity. It proves Christianity not a man-made invention, in one sense.
To repeat: dictators aim for absolute soverignity, with those who go against their laws or merely displease them being imprisoned or executed. In the panorama documentory on NK, the doctors were afraid to ask the government for more hospital supplies for fear of being put in the gulag-like prisons. Old english kings also professed absolute sovereignity over their people, insisting that God put them on the throne. I wouldn't say religions were an invention, more a culture.
Why would anyone preach for leaders to give their servitude to their people in spiritual, physical, and economic ways, if they wanted to control them? Christianity teaches that the least will be the greatest, not the greatest will be the greatest. It teaches servitude to God even for leaders. Why would anyone want to create a religion to be subservient?
I'm not a passable sociologist, psychologist or theologist- but I'm sure if you found one they could answer that question. I do know that there is a part of everyone's personality that likes to be subservient, to have their responsobility taken away, though.
That's your judgement. You have absolutely no way of objectively knowing what maximally great means. You need to have infallible certainty about what 'maximally great' means, and since you don't this argument won't work.
That's your judgement. You have absolutely no way of objectively knowing what maximally great means. You need to have infallible certainty about what 'maximally great' means, and since you don't this argument won't work.
You do realize that Plantinga has defined maximally great so that it is not subjective, correct? And even if he had defined it as the greatest in all capacities, then it would still fit, since greatest implies maximums, which this is defined as already. So, yes, it does work.
I can define this being as potato monster being 2.0 and it would still be true. Simply because it is defined a certain way makes it so that regardless of what we think about maximals or greatnesses the argument stands for an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
If I were to substitute your definitions with two new entities you would get the following:
Anti-god being: a being that necessistates the non-existence of a maximally excellent being
Maximally great being: a being that is anti-godly in every possible world
It's either impossible or necessary that an anti-god exists, so until theist can prove that an anti-god is impossible, an anti-god must be assumed to be real.
- Plantinga's argument can be turned into a necessary argument against god. How would you deal with that?
The argument, as most philosophers including Plantinga said, makes God out to be impossible or necessary. However, what would an anti-God being actually be? What can be comprehended to negate God being real?
What can be comprehended to negate God being real?
Good question, I have no idea. I think that's very much like the situation when atheists consider the possibility of an omnipotent God. Sure we can acknowledge their possibility in theoretical terms, but when we actually try to understand them, things start to get weird.
But there is no way to be "anti-God" to the point of making God impossible. We can imagine an omnipotent being; we can't imagine a being that makes an omnipotent being impossible, other than itself, theoretically.
Possible because we don't currently possess the knowledge to prove or disprove his possibility.
Really this is a weird failure of language because it's possible for someone to develop cancer or catch a cold, etc, and we know why these things are possible because we can observe and measure these things.
We really don't have any tools for measuring the validity of a god. The idea here insists that god is possible? But what if it's possible that he's not possible? In any possible universe? You can't really discredit the possibility that god is simply an impossibility in all possible realities. Infinite possibilities doesn't necessarily translate to all things being possible, you see.
Or to put it another way, a maximal being doesn't necessarily have to be possible in one universe or any universe, and the current possibility of such a maximal being hinges solely on our inability to observe and accurately measure the possibility of such a being. Y'know, it's like there's multiple kinds possible.
We really don't have any tools for measuring the validity of a god. The idea here insists that god is possible? But what if it's possible that he's not possible? In any possible universe? You can't really discredit the possibility that god is simply an impossibility in all possible realities. Infinite possibilities doesn't necessarily translate to all things being possible, you see.
The argument, as philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, have agreed upon, can only be defeated at premise 1, which is whether God is possible or not. Hence, the only way to defeat it is to say that God is logically incomprehensible. If He is not logically incomprehensible, then He is real, by definition. Plantinga even admitted that this is up the the person to decide; however, in what way would He be illogical?
It's really a silly train of logic, I think.
Philosophers think that this is one of the more brilliant logical formulations. People write books on this.
The argument, as philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, have agreed upon, can only be defeated at premise 1, which is whether God is possible or not. Hence, the only way to defeat it is to say that God is logically incomprehensible. If He is not logically incomprehensible, then He is real, by definition. Plantinga even admitted that this is up the the person to decide; however, in what way would He be illogical?
Nonsense! The first premise takes a leap in logic by assuming that such a maximal being is possible in any possible universe.
It's the burden of the person who makes the argument to prove that they are indeed possible. And then we get back into the classic argument of 'you can't prove that god isn't real' and 'well you can't prove that he is.'
It's not a very brilliant formula because it doesn't work, ya dork.
Did you read what I wrote? I said that the first premise assumes that God is possible and that philosophers generally agree that it is the only one that might be wrong, since the rest of the premises follow necessarily. Both theist and atheistic philosophers agree to this. However, it is not the burden of proof for the theist to prove God is possible, since everything is possible unless proven impossible. The only way to prove God impossible is to prove that He is logically incomprehensible such as being a married bachelor. So, let me ask you: is God impossible to be? If not, then you intrinsically are a theist or are logically inconsistent.
Yeah. The first premise assumes that god is possible. And we don't know that. Which means it's is a leap in logic.
He could be possible. He's not logically incomprehensible, but, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's possible. It's also possible that people find out that god is impossible.(With hard evidence, mind you.) You can't discredit that possibility. Despite his logical possibility, his logical impossibility can't be discredited. See. This argument uses a lot of really silly leaps in logic. By saying that god is in the gaps, and that we don't have to prove anything because nobody knows, it makes the argument moot. It's a lovely argument to pitch to people who don't have much of a brain.
Personally, I'm fairly on the fence here, and I'm not too afraid of death because I want to know where everything is going, but using cheap parlor tricks and twisting words and logic to make an argument that -seems- to stand on its own without any hard proof doesn't work on me.
I might not be able to entirely articulate what point I'm getting at, and if that's the case, I apologize, but the first premise of this argument is the reason it fails. It makes an assumption and tries to prove that assumption with its further premises. It's a ridiculous little anecdote, but ultimately, the argument is moot, because it doesn't prove anything. What I think I can compare it to the easiest is Pascal's Wager. Not that I'm saying the logic is the same, nor the point, but Pascal's Wager is one of those cheap arguments that tries to sway people, though it does it in a more direct and brutish manner.
Logic can't prove or disprove god. We're human, our thoughts are inherently flawed. Again, infinite possibilities does not necessarily mean that all things are possible. I'm a skeptical believer.
He could be possible. He's not logically incomprehensible, but, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's possible.
Actually, yes it does. If God is not equivalent to a married-bachlor, then He is possible in some possible world.
It's also possible that people find out that god is impossible. You can't discredit that possibility.
I never did discredit that. However, you would have to demonstrate that God is intrinsically illogical.
Despite his logical possibility, his logical impossibility can't be discredited.
God is either logically possible or logically impossible. There is no in between.
Personally, I'm fairly on the fence here, and I'm not too afraid of death because I want to know where everything is going, but using cheap parlor tricks and twisting words and logic to make an argument that -seems- to stand on its own without any hard proof doesn't work on me.
This is not a parlor trick. This is what many atheistic philosophers believe to be the strongest argument for God. The only way around it, both theist and atheistic philosophers believe, is to say that God is impossible. It is pure logic that proves that if God is possible, then He is real; if He is impossible, then He is impossible.
It makes an assumption and tries to prove that assumption with its further premises.
The argument doesn't try to prove the assumption. It assumes possibility and proves necessity. It does not assume that God is possible and then conclude that God is possible.
It seems to me that you don't understand the argument too well. I can help explain it to you if you would like. I can reference some atheistic reviews of it to you, if you want. Every rebut didn't rebut the argument at all.
So, now I ask you: is God impossible or necessary?
Actually, yes it does. If God is not equivalent to a married-bachlor, then He is possible in some possible world.
Logically possible. Not scientifically possible. There's a difference.
God is either logically possible or logically impossible. There is no in between.
Logical possibility or impossibility. There is an in between. We don't have hard proof that he's scientifically possible or impossible. Without hard proof, everything comes down to logic, and logic can't prove god. It's a very convincing argument and it's interesting, but when it comes down to it, without accurately measuring the possibility of a maximal being, we're back down to logic. And modal logic is something of a peculiarity because it assumes that things that aren't logically incomprehensible must be possible. Logically possible. Key word being logic.
Anyways, assuming that something is possible because you can't prove that it's impossible is a good assumption to make, but a lot of people forget about the whole assuming that something isn't possible.
But.
God impossible or necessary?
He is, right now a logical possibility. But. Buuuut.
It's also not logically incomprehensible right now that god's impossible in all possible universes.
Furthermore, we don't have enough information to correctly make an entirely sound affirmative or negative. We don't have enough information to correctly know if he's logically incomprehensible or not.
Again, it's a cheap parlor trick because it makes the assumption that we know enough about our universe to know whether or not god is possible. We don't.
Logically possible. Not scientifically possible. There's a difference.
If it is logically possible, then it follows that it is possible in some possible world. Thus, continue the logic and God is real.
Logical possibility or impossibility. There is an in between. We don't have hard proof that he's scientifically possible or impossible. Without hard proof, everything comes down to logic, and logic can't prove god. It's a very convincing argument and it's interesting, but when it comes down to it, without accurately measuring the possibility of a maximal being, we're back down to logic. And modal logic is something of a peculiarity because it assumes that things that aren't logically incomprehensible must be possible. Logically possible. Key word being logic.
Okay, first off, we need to break the hold on science for you: we can assume using modal logic, for a world that is not bound by the same physical laws as this one. God is either logically possible or impossible. There is no in between. Hard proof is irrelevant to the argument. If God is possible, then He is real. If He isn't, then He isn't.
Anyways, assuming that something is possible because you can't prove that it's impossible is a good assumption to make, but a lot of people forget about the whole assuming that something isn't possible.
In modal logic, everything is possible unless proven impossible. Prove God impossible and then you can believe that God, while being logically consistent. If you can't then you have no reason to not believe in God, while having every reason to believe in Him.
It's also not logically incomprehensible right now that god's impossible in all possible universes.
If God is possible, the God is in every possible world, by definition of a maximally great being existing, a maximally excellent being exists in every possible world. Thus, if God is real in one world, then He is real in this world.
Furthermore, we don't have enough information to correctly make an entirely sound affirmative or negative. We don't have enough information to correctly know if he's logically incomprehensible or not.
Why not? You can prove to me that a married-bachelor is illogical. Why not God? Its because He is real and you don't want to accept that there is no contradiction.
Again, it's a cheap parlor trick because it makes the assumption that we know enough about our universe to know whether or not god is possible. We don't.
It is irrelevant. Imagine a universe that allows for God. Thus, if God is not logically incomprehensible within Himself, then He is real.
If it is logically possible, then it follows that it is possible in some possible world.
It does not. Modal logic'll assume that it does, but modal logic has a very large flaw in that it assumes that anything that's not illogical must be possible and therefore exists somewhere. Modal logic is not infallible, mind you, and has not existed before the dawn of man, it is not timeless, and it is not entirely sound, and I think it's assumption that possibility means existence in some possible world or another is its biggest flaw. Logical possibility does not equal absolute possibility.(For we do not possess absolutely infallible logic.) Again. Infinite possibilities does not mean that all things are possible, and this includes all other possible realities where the laws of the universe are different.
Anyways, let me just sum up with brunt of my argument here: Humans are stupid. We don't know enough about anything to make any logical conclusions that are entirely sound. Modal logic isn't sound. We don't know enough about how other possibilities work and what keeps everything together to possibly have the logical confidence to make such grand assumptions.
Its because He is real and you don't want to accept that there is no contradiction.
And someone is getting tired of debating it seems like.
I think I'm going to stop. This was really fun for awhile, but I think we're at a brick wall here. Either way, I think I learned a little, so that's good. Thanks for talking with me, and I apologize if I insulted you in some fashion. Sometimes I do that in the heat of the moment.
it assumes that anything that's not illogical must be possible and therefore exists somewhere.
The only way for something to not be possible is for it to be impossible. the only way for it to be impossible is for it to be logically inconsistent with itself or the world it is in. A maximally great being is defined as a being that maximally excellent in all possible worlds. If it is possible for it to exist in some world and is not logically inconsistent within itself, then it follows that it is real in the actual world.
Modal logic is not infallible, mind you, and has not existed before the dawn of man, it is not timeless, and it is not entirely sound,
Modal logic is simply a bunch of "if... then..." formulations. It has been around since the dawn of logic. How is that not sound? You no like logic?
I think it's assumption that possibility means existence in some possible world or another is its biggest flaw.
How would something that is possible not be real in some possible world? That doesn't make any sense.
Logical possibility does not equal absolute possibility.(For we do not possess absolutely infallible logic.)
It is true that we don't possess absolutely infallible logic. However,the logic that has been refined and revised over the years has shown us that this is logically true. And even at that, you can only say that something possibly possible or impossible; you cannot say that something is possible but also impossible.
It is impossible for a human being to comprehend the qualities of a maximally great being. Why is it maximally great to be existence? Why is it maximally great to be benevolent rather than malevolent?
It is impossible for a human being to comprehend the qualities of a maximally great being.
Not at all. A maximally great being is one which is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A maximally excellent being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. There are limits to those that are conceivable.
Why is it maximally great to be existence?
That was Kant's objection. This is not an argument around it being great to exist. It is an argument based in definition of it being great when in all possible worlds.
Why is it maximally great to be benevolent rather than malevolent?
Evil is the lack of good. Morally perfect is an aspect of greatness, since evil is the lack of.
Not at all. A maximally great being is one which is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A maximally excellent being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. There are limits to those that are conceivable.
You are awesome. He tells you that you can't comprehend what a maximally great being is and the only response you have is that he is wrong because a maximally great being would be maximally excellent. Thus proving you can't demonstrate the qualities you hope to show.
i'm not sure that you understand. One of the criticisms of the argument is that the qualities of maximal excellency are incapable of being comprehended, similar to a great island. However, with a great island, one can continue to imagine an even better one. Hence, because omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection has defined limits, it is not impossible to comprehend its maximum.
It is impossible, seeing as no one is able to do it. You r whole argument is using the word maximally enough times until people give up. You define a maximal being as a being that is maximal.
How so? You can imagine a being that can do all-things can't you? You can imagine a being that knows all-things, correct? You can imagine something that is morally perfect, right? Simply by our ability to define it displays that we can comprehend it.
The only example I have seen is from the Bible, so no, that guy is a total jerk and has moral ambiguities.
Thus, the Abrahamic God is real ;) also, if we are completely evil as the Bible states, while God is utterly good, then it follows that we would think God to be evil in a state of nature.
We are intrinsically anti-God, philosophically and theologically, which means that if we perceive God to be good, then we have made God into our own images and are making Him evil. The only way around it is if people think that He is evil, since people are evil, for Him to actually be good. And the reason we know He is good is because He died for our sins.
I am repeating your distorted words back to you, you have ruined the image of God. You have said those things, not me. You have either distorted God or distorted English, it's up to you.
I didn't distort anything, it is all you. You are the one with the perfect knowledge of God and you can't help but distort it. Of course, a better explanation would be that there is no God to distort. ;)
Oh man, I just read this incredibly dumb post again. Are you brain damaged? Were you dropped on your head? I just want to know before I start with the personal attacks. You are saying that a being with unlimited powers has defined limits. Do you know what the words unlimited, defined, and limit mean?
There is a limit to power: being able to do everything. There is a limit to knowledge: knowing all things. There is a limit to morality: being morally perfect.
This you first and last warning to not attack people based personally. You will be banned.
All-powerful had a notion of being able to do all-things, thus, being unlimited in ability to do things. However, most philosophers define omnipotence as having a limit of being up to the logically impossible. However, that is still irrelevant, since the max can be imagined, unlike a maximally great island.
Good, you being a hypocrite and saying that God has a limit to His powers and has unlimited powers shows that you know you have lost.
However, most philosophers define omnipotence as having a limit of being up to the logically impossible.
Logically, the idea of omnipotence doesn't make sense. If you introduce logical omnipotence, you still have said that God has a limit to His power and has unlimited power. Therefore, your logical contradiction can't exist.
However, that is still irrelevant, since the max can be imagined, unlike a maximally great island.
That doesn't make sense, you said the words, therefore it is imagined. The island is maximally great because we have said the island is maximally great. See? You even know that your God logic is flawed. You point out that there is a flaw with the idea of maximal greatness, and that is good enough for me.
Which part of modal logic says that it is ok for your God to have unlimited power and a defined limit to His power? You are asking for the logically impossible. :)
This is why I asked you what you mean by unlimited, since it has many different senses to the word, even within a simple examination of power. Omnipotence has classically, and by many philosophers of the argument, as being limited to the logically possible. God cannot make a married-bachelor. So, within the limits of the logically possible, God is unlimited. However, that unlimited is conceivable, since it intrinsically has a maximum, which is "all", unlike a maximally great island, which can always have another tree or coconut added to it into infinity. However, even if God can do the logically impossible, then it would still have a maximum limit, yet be unlimited. God could do all things but "all" is intrinsically a limit (meaning a maximum that can be), unlike an island, which can always have another tree added to it.
That argument is simply arguing against the first premise, whether or not a maximally great being is possible or not. Either a maximally great being exists or doesn't exist. Your argument assumes by premise one that it cannot exist. Hence, it is begging the question, since everything is possible unless proven impossible.
Whereas as the ontological argument assumes that it is possible and also begs the question. Like every other argument for God, it comes down to faith yet again - do you believe that it is possible that such a being exists?
It is just as rational to say a maximally great being is possible and therefore exists as to say a world without a maximally great being is possible so a maximally great being does not exist. Plantinga himself states that it is up to the individual to decide which logic the rational individual follows.
I agree that the argument comes down to whether the first premise is true or not. However, in what way would a maximally great being be incomprehensible?
I don't see how P2 can be confirmed. We can't comprehend this being or test it in our own world and we can't even test for other worlds so we don't even know if those exist let alone what is in them. I don't agree with P2. You can't say that unless you can prove it
Okay so in philosophy it's okay to pretend that made up worlds are realities. So one of these worlds that were made up includes a god in it. So this also means that one of these worlds could also have magic. And wizards and fairies and underpants gnomes. And if your premises follow the same way then those must exist in our reality....I'm no philosophy student, but I dot see how imaginary things in some imaginary hypothetical world follow any premises into our reality..
There would be a possible world with magic and wizards and fairies and underpants gnomes. However, that doesn't mean that they are necessary; they are all contingent beings and have no basis to be in any other world except that of their imaginary world, such as Hillary Clinton being president in 2012 or me mowing my lawn right now instead of typing this sentence. A maximally great being by definition makes it so that it is necessary, not contingent.
Because by definition of the maximally great being having maximal excellency in all possible worlds, it follows that if it is possible, then it is necessary.
Who even cares? This entire argument opperates on reason and nothing else. so nobody even has to accept any of it because theres no empitical evidence within it at all.
Logic and reason alone arent evidence. They are applied to evidence to deduce meaning from it. And no you actually cant just logic your way from point A to point B without anything to apply it to and this also applies to simple math.
You cant reason that 2 + 2 = 4 without demonstrating what two is. What is two? One object and another object together make two. Put another two next to it and you have 4. That is the empirical evidence. The actual observation of two and two making four.
Alright, count up every atom in the universe (theoretically of course), and add one to it. You couldn't prove it from your premises of needing the empirical to base reason upon, since we don't have every atom plus one and, thus, cannot reason it to be true. You also cannot prove negative numbers or abstract numbers such as imaginary numbers, which have real bearings on the real world.
You don't understand the argument. That's okay. Its not easy but philosophers have been struggling with it for hundreds of years and generally its agreed that only the first point can be flawed.
I dont see why there should be ANY struggle. Its an argument formed by pure reason and logic. Two things that mean jack shit if theres no empirical evidence involved that theyre applied to. So you dont have to accept the ontological argument at all.
Philosophy isn't about presenting empirical evidence. Its about reasoning. If you don't respect it then that's fine but you can hardly call philosophers idiots.
It's not philosophy that is idiotic. You misunderstand. But in this case when were trying to deduce the existence of something within our reality then it ends up in the realm of science. All the reasoning in the world won't prove a god. Only empirical evidence will.
This argument doesn't get rid of Kant’s objection. In order for god to exist in all possible words, then existence must be a great making property. If existence isn't a great making property, then a maximally great being doesn't need to necessarily exist in all.possible worlds.
Another argument against this the question of great. This first appeared in a debate I did and on a blog I write for.
It assumes an objective standard of great, but this standard can’t coexist with God.
Great is the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can’t objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.
So, where does the standard of great comes from to say that God is the greatest possible being?
I can think of 2 ways
1. The standard is above God
2. The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.
Both ways can’t fit with the Ontological arguments.
The standard is above God
This can’t be true under a theistic world view, because it would undermine a God, by saying there’s something above him that he’s subject to. It also means the source of such a standard must be the ultimate of great thing, which God is suppose to be. I’m sure this will be regarded as false by most.
The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.
This however would mean the arguments are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Since God, being the greatest must necessarily exist, but “great” is set by God. It’s like trying to prove a maximally fast car exists, but you say “fast” is set by how fast the car you’re trying to prove is going.
If “great” is set by the being, then saying God necessarily exists because it is the greatest, is saying God must necessarily exist, because God is most like himself.
This argument doesn't get rid of Kant’s objection. In order for god to exist in all possible words, then existence must be a great making property. If existence isn't a great making property, then a maximally great being doesn't need to necessarily exist in all.possible worlds.
It is irrelevant if it is a great making property. The definition of a maximally great being is such that even if being real is not a great making property, it is still apart of the definition.
Great is the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can’t objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.
We are not talking about great making properties. We are talking about a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. Great making properties is irrelevant.
And even if you wanted to say that this is referring to great making properties, the things listed are confined positive attributes (meaning there to be a maximum limit that is conceivable - being able to do all things, knowing all things, and being morally perfect; "all" is simply a notion of everything and is not begging the question or a factor of insufficiency for God), not negative. If you say great making properties, then you could say being great in power and not power, which would be a direct contradiction.
That's the very problem, existence isn't a property something has, it's what lets a thing have properties. If existence isn't a part of the definition, then it doesn't need to exist in all worlds.
How are great making properties irrelevant? If a tri omni properties aren't great, then how can the argument work? The entire point of the my objection is that there is a maximum conceivable limit. The question is, where did the limit come from? You misunderstood the objection.
That's the very problem, existence isn't a property something has, it's what lets a thing have properties. If existence isn't a part of the definition, then it doesn't need to exist in all worlds.
God is thought of as the greatest thing that is. If another reality were to exist, and thing be different, then God would still be thought to be maximally excellent within that world. A maximally great being is one that is not just maximally excellent but is so in every world (i.e. God). Hence, we avoid Kant's objection by reframing the objection to not being existent but by being greater than everything necessarily, in every possible world. Let me clarify: without God, we can imagine things that are the greatest things possible within a world and then other things that are greater in other worlds. However, we think of God as the greatest thing possible regardless of what other things are in the world. Therefore, God is the thing that is necessarily greater than everything else; hence, the objection of Kant is pointless to Plantinga's argument. The property is not existence but being greater than everything else in every possible world. You might want to examine the argument a bit more. Here is the link to his analysis:
How are great making properties irrelevant? If a tri omni properties aren't great, then how can the argument work? The entire point of the my objection is that there is a maximum conceivable limit. The question is, where did the limit come from? You misunderstood the objection.
Great making properties are irrelevant. What we are trying to display is that God Himself is by definition greater than anything that is possible. Maximums is pointless if there is nothing that is maximum within that world. For example, if the maximum (omnipotence) of power is 100% and everything in the possible world is 40%, then it doesn't need to be anything but 41%. However, we can imagine a world that beings grow slower to the maximum limit. There can only be one being that is omnipotent, since which one would be omnipotent if they both are, which shows that maximals are simply expressions of being greater than other beings, not a definition that is above God or intrinsic to God.
Your definition of maximally great may violate the word maximally. You have to demonstrate that the world allows for your definition of maximally. The word maximally means the maximum allowed. You have not demonstrated that a maximally great being would be able to have the properties listed.
What? Maximal power is all-powerful, maximal knowledge is all-knowing, and maximal morality is morally perfect. That is what it is defined as. Everything is possible until proven impossible. Hence, it is your job to argue that it is not possible.
Wrong, maximal means the most that is possibly allowed. You have no evidence that the universe will allow an all powerful being. Therefore, you cannot define maximally powerful as all powerful.
That is what it is defined as.
I define God differently, therefore He doesn't exist. Your definition is worthless.
Everything is possible until proven impossible.
I say it is possible that we live in a world without God, prove me wrong.
Wrong, maximal means the most that is possibly allowed. You have no evidence that the universe will allow an all powerful being. Therefore, you cannot define maximally powerful as all powerful.
Some possible world allows for an all-powerful, and all-knowing, and morally perfect being.
I define God differently, therefore He doesn't exist. Your definition is worthless.
How do you define Him?
I say it is possible that we live in a world without God, prove me wrong.
That is already assuming that God is impossible. Hence, you must prove that God is impossible.
Modal logic does not apply. You are saying that it is possible without any reason. How does modal logic apply?
It is possible that there is a world that could contain a maximally great being. How would it be impossible for a world like this to exist?
That's how I defined maximally great then. So that doesn't exist either.
Okay, then you defined maximally great that way. That still doesn't negate my defined maximally great being to be real.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Those are possible until you prove they are impossible. Sorry, those are the rules in the fantasy land you have created.
They are all possible and exist in some possible worlds. That does not mean that they are necessary beings though. This makes it clear to me that you don't understand modal logic.
You are correct, I don't understand how modal logic allows you to say that something doesn't exist, and also exists when your reasoning becomes flawed. I didn't go to Sunday school in church, I don't understand all of the intricacies of lying.
You are simply renaming God as X. Why would this being be anything other than God? And if you are going into Gaunilo's objection, then I would say that it is unintelligible, since this being, for example a great island, cannot be comprehended, since at what level is it maximum'ed? Hence, not every non-contradictory entity exists in the actual world, since the only maximum possible things are already listed.
X could be the Christian god, as you have defined him as maximal in modality, but X could also be something like a thought-gnome, but in addition to being a normal thought-gnome, it is also maximal in modality.
This thought-gnome is not self-contradictory, so it is possible, and it is defined as not contingent, it follows (using the argument you have presented) that at least this one though-gnome exists in our would.
It is possible I am misunderstanding your argument, but from my understanding you would have to demonstrate that a thought-gnome who is maximal in modality is impossible, if you can't you have to accept its existence.
X could be the Christian god, as you have defined him as maximal in modality, but X could also be something like a thought-gnome, but in addition to being a normal thought-gnome, it is also maximal in modality.
Not at all; this is a different ontological argument from what I wrote out. Maximal modality comes from the definition of maximal greatness. Maximal greatness is simply God: when we think of God we think of Him as a being that regardless of the circumstances is always greater than everything in that reality. Hence, a maximally excellent being is one that, without God being possible, is the greatest thing in that world, but would not be in another world; a maximally great being is one that is always greater than everything else regardless of the circumstances, which is why the definition of the being goes into that of applying to all worlds. A thought-gnome has no capacities that would allow it to be maximally great unless you are renaming it God; any other formulation is begging the question.
We cannot just say that something is necessary, thus, making it real, if not logically impossible: that would be begging the question. We have to derive a reason why it would be necessary, not simply contingent, which can only fall to God.
Maximal modality comes from the definition of maximal greatness.
Yes, you are defining the Christian god to have maximal modality, I can do the same.
Maximal greatness is simply God
You can label a Maximally great being "God" if you would like.
when we think of God we think of Him as a being that regardless of the circumstances is always greater than everything in that reality.
Sure, people think of their god as the greatest entity, I have no problem with that.
a maximally great being is one that is always greater than everything else regardless of the circumstances, which is why the definition of the being goes into that of applying to all worlds.
Sure, you are defining the this entity as maximally great in all aspects, I am defining Tedlous as a thought-gnome who is maximally great in only one aspect.
A thought-gnome has no capacities that would allow it to be maximally great unless you are renaming it God; any other formulation is begging the question.
I disagree, I am imaging Tedlous right now, he is a thought-gnome who exists in all possible worlds. He is only maximally great in modality. Tedlous is defined as non-contingent and no one has demonstrated him to be impossible, your maximal being is defined as non-contingent and no one has demonstrated him to be impossible. I don't see any difference.
We cannot just say that something is necessary, thus, making it real, if not logically impossible: that would be begging the question. We have to derive a reason why it would be necessary, not simply contingent, which can only fall to God.
This sounds like special pleading.
It seams like you are saying that Tedlous can't be maximal in modality because he lacks the mechanism for such a trait, if this is the case, please describe the mechanism that allows maximal modality.
Sure, you are defining the this entity as maximally great in all aspects, I am defining Tedlous as a thought-gnome who is maximally great in only one aspect.
Maximal greatness is only defined as being omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in all possible worlds. You cannot be partially maximally great.
I disagree, I am imaging Tedlous right now, he is a thought-gnome who exists in all possible worlds. He is only maximally great in modality. Tedlous is defined as non-contingent and no one has demonstrated him to be impossible, your maximal being is defined as non-contingent and no one has demonstrated him to be impossible. I don't see any difference.
This sounds like special pleading.
This is begging the question and can be applied to every being. We have to derive a reason why this being would be necessary. Otherwise, we can say anything to be real by definition and then say that it is not logically impossible, thus making is real necessarily. That is going from a state of necessity to a state of necessity. This argument is going from a state of possibility to a state of necessity and displaying that God can only be maximally great. Tedlous is only contingent; otherwise, it is begging the question.
Plantinga's argument is that God is the greatest thing within every possible world. He is great within reality, one possible world, and will still be great if we imagine another possible world. That is the notion of what God is: He is always greater than everything. Plantinga establishes that a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect within one world is maximally excellent. Furthermore, he establishes that because God would always be greater than everything, then God must be this omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, since there can only be one being that is greater than everything in some possible world. However, because of the reasons I have said above, we always think of God being always greater than everything regardless of which world He is in, then we can establish that He is necessary, not simply contingent.
Furthermore, he establishes that because God would always be greater than everything, then God must be this omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, since there can only be one being that is greater than everything in some possible world.
Alright, I have no objection the the idea of one maximal being, as you have demonstrated this a while back by pointing out maximal sovereignty is necessarily singular.
However, because of the reasons I have said above, we always think of God being always greater than everything regardless of which world He is in, then we can establish that He is necessary, not simply contingent.
I have no objection (relevant to this discussion) with you defining a maximal being in the way that you have above, I just fail to see the connection between the argument and the demonstration of necessity. You define that a maximal being in non-contingent, then based on the definition, we are able to comprehend the idea of a maximal being, making it possible, is there anything else you are using to demonstrate the necessity of a maximal being?
There is no reason for it to exist in every possible world. The definition does not make any sense: it is begging the question to say that it exists in every possible world without a reason for it to exist in every possible world.
The notion of God has always been that of being a being in which no greater can be conceived, regardless of the circumstances. Hence, it follows that it will always be a being in which no greater can be conceived. Therefore, the mere fact of it being a being in which no greater can be conceived displays that it is necessary. Your being is not a being that will always be viewed as being greater than everything, though it might be in some possible world, assuming that God is not possible. However, we could exchange the name of God, a being in which no greater can be conceived, for the name of your being and the argument would be the same. The only issue, though is that the characteristics of the being would still be omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, which is God, regardless of how you name it.
The notion of God has always been that of being a being in which no greater can be conceived, regardless of the circumstances. Hence, it follows that it will always be a being in which no greater can be conceived.
Are you saying that because people have always defined a maximal being as existing in all possible worlds, that allows you to also define it in that way without begging the question?
The classical ontological argument is arguing from a state of God being the greatest being in which no greater can be conceived. This argument is taking the same argument and reshaping it so that the objections to the original are irrelevant. And even if you want to say that the notion of God does not make it such that it is a being in which no greater can be conceived, then you could still imagine a being that could fit that criteria. However, the point still remains that your being has no qualities other than the statement of it being necessary, which is begging the question. God has a reason for being necessary, which is that it is maximally great regardless of the circumstances.
God has a reason for being necessary, which is that it is maximally great regardless of the circumstances.
That is only because you have defined it this way, with the exception of a history of people defining a maximal being in the way you have, do you have have any reason to define it in that way?
Not really. :) haha If you derive a formula for something to be necessary outside of it being maximally great, then maybe. You have to remember that no physical being could exist in every possible world, since one possible world could be for there to be no nature, only the abstract. The abstract is always, if we are referencing possible worlds, since by definition of us referencing possible worlds there has to be something, whether it be physical or abstract. However, the abstract is always here: it is math and logical absolutes and square definitions. In fact, the only things that I know of that are necessary in modal logic are things that are abstract (i.e. the things that I have named). Hence, this being must intrinsically be abstract, which is to say supernatural, even to have a possibility of it being necessary. No other thing outside of God has been determined to be a necessary being.
If you derive a formula for something to be necessary outside of it being maximally great, then maybe.
I thought something is possible unless someone demonstrates it to be impossible, is that accurate?
You have to remember that no physical being could exist in every possible world, since one possible world could be for there to be no nature, only the abstract.
I never defined Tedlous as physical, I also never defined Thought-Gnomes as physical, so this isn't relevant.
this being must intrinsically be abstract, which is to say supernatural, even to have a possibility of it being necessary.
If I define Thought-Gnomes as abstract, would Tedlous then be able to exist in all possible worlds?
I thought something is possible unless someone demonstrates it to be impossible, is that accurate?
Everything is possible unless proven impossible. However, we cannot prove something to be necessary unless we have determined the characteristics of the being. It is possible that there is another being that is necessary; however, that does not mean that it is.
I never defined Tedlous as physical, I also never defined Thought-Gnomes as physical, so this isn't relevant.
Of course it is. It eliminates many possibilities.
If I define Thought-Gnomes as abstract, would Tedlous then be able to exist in all possible worlds?
No, thoughts are abstract but they are not necessary. The only things that can be necessary are things that are abstract.
If I define Thought-Gnomes as abstract, would Tedlous then be able to exist in all possible worlds?
No, thoughts are abstract but they are not necessary. The only things that can be necessary are things that are abstract.
However, we cannot prove something to be necessary unless we have determined the characteristics of the being.
You are imagining a maximal being, and because it isn't logically incomprehensible it exists in some possible would, much like Tedlous. What characteristic are required to determine if an entity is necessary?
From my understanding, you have only defined it as such.
It depends on the issue. Specifically this is saying that it is a being that is always greater than any other being. However, that is not defining God as necessary. It is defining it as a being that is greater than all other things, which is then taken to its logical conclusion.
There is a difference between saying something is necessary by definition and then concluding that it is necessary from saying something is defined this way, which logically follows to this conclusion. For example, we cannot simply say that a thing in a box is an animal, unless we characterize it as a dog first. If we say that it is an animal and then conclude that it is an animal, then it is begging the question. However, if we state that it is a dog, then we conclude that the logical ending of it is an animal. What you are getting on to is simply logical proofing; when you are presented a series of premises, the conclusion is hiding within the premises, though not stated as the premises. Simply stating the conclusion as the premise is begging the question, while deducing the conclusion is not.
For example, if we have the following:
A>R
A
R>I
~IvP
You can conclude that P is a conclusion of the premises. However, simply stating P is begging the question, since there is no way to prove P in the first place unless there is something to provide the evidence. This is the same with God. We have, over the years and in philosophy, determined that God is the greatest being in which no greater can be conceived. Hence, that definition is the premises, which makes it follow that a different being, without the definition to make it so that it is necessary, would be begging the question.
We have, over the years and in philosophy, determined that God is the greatest being in which no greater can be conceived.
Sure, people have defined a maximal being as a being which no greater can be conceived, I have no problem with that. Is your only objection to Tedlous that no one else has defined it as being a Thought-Gnome in all possible worlds?
I'd like to add another argument. It comes from Ryan Stenger.
A. It is possible that p.
B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.
D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)
Various plugins for P can be used. Like,
1. Evil exists and a God is incompatible with it.
2. Minds can only exist in the physical world.
3. Free non god beings always do what is morally wrong.
4. Omnipotence is impossible
5. Being morally perfect is impossible
6. Omniscience is impossible.
Basically, at the very least it makes the ontological argument on equal footing as this argument. However, the ontological argument doesn't refute this because we can only say it is possible that a MGB exists, but we're not limited to one P. So, it would be more possible that all cases of the modal argument for atheism are true than the ontological argument.
B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.
D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)
It assumes for one point and then assumes for another point. The argument as philosophers agree is that God is either impossible or necessary. We don't deny that, while your argument already assumes that God is impossible. This argument is not proving God; it is displaying God in such a way to make it that if God is logically comprehensible, then He exists. You need to do some more research on it from actual philosophers.
1. A maximally great being is possible (It is not logically incomprehensible)
To suppose that a maximally great being exists, one must also suppose a maximum or limit to it's greatness. In other words the being must be finite. If a being is infinite, it can never be entirely comprehensible, and neither would "maximally great" be a logical way of describing such a being.
2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world (P1)
A being that is -thought to be- maximally great can be supposed, sure. A -possible world- is one that MAY exist only as a supposition, and therefore may be incorrectly called a world. The best this argument can do is suppose what might be. It does not logically follow that since a maximally great being can be supposed to exist, that it necessarily exists beyond the realm of our imagination.
3. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (P2; apply definition of maximally great being)
Maybe the maximum amount of "worlds" (you are abusing the term IMO) a being can exist in is limited to one.
4. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (P3)
a being (possibly mis-characterized as maximally great) could exist as nothing but imaginative activity
To suppose that a maximally great being exists, one must also suppose a maximum or limit to it's greatness. In other words the being must be finite. If a being is infinite, it can never be entirely comprehensible, and neither would "maximally great" be a logical way of describing such a being.
There are maximums to power, knowledge, and morality. "All" is intrinsically a maximum, since you cannot do anything more than everything or know anything more than everything or be more morally perfect.
A being that is -thought to be- maximally great can be supposed, sure. A -possible world- is one that MAY exist only as a supposition, and therefore may be incorrectly called a world. The best this argument can do is suppose what might be. It does not logically follow that since a maximally great being can be supposed to exist, that it necessarily exists beyond the realm of our imagination.
Yes, it does. The argument displays that if a maximally great being is possible, then it is necessary. That is the entire point of it.
Maybe the maximum amount of "worlds" (you are abusing the term IMO) a being can exist in is limited to one.
Possible worlds is a modal logic term. This statement also doesn't follow. Hillary Clinton is in at least one, this one, and I can imagine her in another one.
a being (possibly mis-characterized as maximally great) could exist as nothing but imaginative activity
There are maximums to power, knowledge, and morality. "All" is intrinsically a maximum
All of these concepts require the assumption that reality is finite. They require "closed system" think.
since you cannot do anything more than everything or know anything more than everything or be more morally perfect.
If reality is infinite, the word "everything" is invalid.
Is your assumption that it's impossible to be morally perfect, based on the way you interpret your bible, or did you come to this conclusion some other way?
Yes, it does. The argument displays that if a maximally great being is possible, then it is necessary. That is the entire point of it.
It's garbage. the ability to suppose something that's also supposed to be maximally great does not logically necessitate that it actually is maximally great...sorry.
Possible worlds is a modal logic term.
And a shabby one at that
This statement also doesn't follow.
From what?
Hillary Clinton is in at least one, this one, and I can imagine her in another one.
And this can be soley imaginary, your ability to imagine various "worlds" does not render these "worlds" any thing but exercises in imaginative play.
That doesn't follow. Follow the logic trail.
I am introducing a possibility. Instead of saying that what I suppose doesn't follow, you should ask how it is logically supported. If you are unaware of my premise(s) you can't determine whether the statement logically follows. To say that it doesn't logically follow without being able to reference the premises it is supposed to follow from, is an empty accusation that will only be convincing to those who really aren't clear on what logic is to begin with.
You should really do some research on this argument because your arguments against the ontological argument are not very good. You have yet I demonstrate how any of the premises are incorrect.
You should really do some research on this argument because your arguments against the ontological argument are not very good.
That's your opinion. Your opinion is of questionable value, especially since you think these ontological arguments are good. I, unlike you, can see them for the drivel they are. They are not examples of thorough thinking, they are examples of mental masturbation.
To argue for the existence of something is retarded. to discuss the qualities of things observed...not so much so.
You have yet I demonstrate how any of the premises are incorrect.
Or alternately you fail to recognize what's been demonstrated to you. When you say my arguments aren't very good, the grain of salt that I take that with, is that you think these ontological arguments are good. You think good arguments are bad and vice versa. You act as if highly respected philosophers don't have their own varieties of idiocy.
Well, I will say this: the majority of philosophers agree with the argument, myself included. The only problem is that people who are laymen in philosophy and logic cannot understand the argument very well and automatically discredit it because it sounds ridiculous.
Well, I will say this: the majority of philosophers agree with the argument, myself included.
I expect argument from authority (of majority) from you. Your whole ideology is an appeal to authority fallacy.
The only problem is that people who are laymen in philosophy and logic cannot understand the argument very well and automatically discredit it because it sounds ridiculous.
The argument IS ridiculous, and it doesn't take a professor of philosophy to realize it. The argument here is that since we can imagine what we (maybe just maybe mistakenly) think of as a maximal being, there must actually be a being that is accurately described as maximal. What, if anything am I leaving out? .....This attempted "elitism by proxy" of yours.....is sad
The argument IS ridiculous, and it doesn't take a professor of philosophy to realize it.
That sure is true, since most philosophy professors agree that it isn't ridiculous.
I expect argument from authority (of majority) from you. Your whole ideology is an appeal to authority fallacy.
I understand it perfectly. You have yet to present anything to counter it. The only thing that I do after destroying your rebuttals and you not realize it is to point you to authority. I can show you that 2+2=4 all day but if you won't accept it, then I have to appeal to authority, since you won't accept someone who is not viewed as credible by a site filled with people who don't understand what they are talking about. If you won't accept me telling you it follows, then the only thing I can do is point you to the people who understand it professionally to try and convince you that it is correct.
The argument here is that since we can imagine what we (maybe just maybe mistakenly) think of as a maximal being, there must actually be a being that is accurately described as maximal.
How can a maximally great being not be viewed as a maximal being? And in a summed up version, yes, this is the argument. There is much more to it but most people don't understand it.
What, if anything am I leaving out?
A lot. The previous statement is a summation, which is the final end to a conditional proof, which is the ontological argument in a sense.
.....This attempted "elitism by proxy" of yours.....is sad
Your attempt at discrediting it is sad... you have not done anything but say that it is ridiculous without any backing as to why. I have demonstrated how it is sound, primarily that it is valid, and that it is viewed as valid by the large majority of philosophers.
The argument is garbage. Sure, we can suppose the existence of a being, then further suppose the being is maximally great, but just because a being can be supposed to fit this "maximally great" description doesn't mean it does. I could say that any being is "maximally great", and it would be no less logically sound.
Can a maximally great being grow? By definition NO. So if there is a maximally great being, those who CAN grow are more powerful than it is in a sense.
The argument is garbage. Sure, we can suppose the existence of a being, then further suppose the being is maximally great, but just because a being can be supposed to fit this "maximally great" description doesn't mean it does. I could say that any being is "maximally great", and it would be no less logically sound.
You aren't understanding the argument. God is thought of as the being in which no greater can be conceived. Regardless of whichever world God is in, He cannot be surpassed in greatness. For example, we live in this world and we think of Him as a being in which no greater can be; however, if circumstances were different, then we would still not think of Him as any less than we ought to think of Him. Moreover, if we eliminate God from the possibility, we can imagine a being that is greater than everything in one possible world but then imagine a being that is greater than it in another possible world. Hence, if we can imagine a being in which no greater can be conceived, like God, then it follows that this being must be maximally excellent in all possible worlds. No other being fits that criteria of being greater than everything always, regardless of the circumstances.
Can a maximally great being grow? By definition NO. So if there is a maximally great being, those who CAN grow are more powerful than it is in a sense.
You're not understanding the argument. Growing does not entail greatness. If it grows, then one can imagine a being that is already greater than it, while it grows, and is thus not as great.
Perhaps you should try entertaining the possibility that you and those you excessively respect might be wrong. I think to understand the argument is to recognize it as pathetically flawed. Since you think it's a good argument, my opinion is that you poorly understand it.
Supposing that there is a maximally great being, it lacks the power to grow that less "great" beings have. These beings which are supposed to be less great than the imaginary "maximal being" are therefore greater in a sense. Growth does indeed entail greatness, for to grow is to increase in greatness is it not?
Since you think it's a good argument, my opinion is that you poorly understand it.
I would say the reverse. To claim what you just claimed is to claim that philosophers don't understand it. That is illogical. I don't think you understand it: you have yet to present any rebut to the argument that is of any accreditation.
Supposing that there is a maximally great being, it lacks the power to grow that less "great" beings have.
This is not an argument. Growing is not a capacity if maximal greatness; it is actually a sign of a lack of maximal greatness.
Growth does indeed entail greatness, for to grow is to increase in greatness is it not?
It is to grow in greatness; however, that doesn't mean that it is great when it finishes growing or that it is great as it is growing equivalent to a maximally great being. This argument is not a very good one.... I'm sorry to say... it really is pathetic.... I would have expected better from you... well, anyone for that matter could have found a better rebut than that... you clearly do not understand it in the least.
I would say the reverse. To claim what you just claimed is to claim that philosophers don't understand it. That is illogical.
You excessively default to saying "that's illogical" and "that doesn't follow". There are times when it's appropriate to state these opinions, and it's right before you explain how it's illogical or why something doesn't logically follow from the premises. hint: if an opponent has yet to articulate the premises, you can't say their assertion doesn't logically follow, because it might
I don't think you understand it
We each think the other has a poorer grasp of the subject. I think I understand the argument better than Plantinga. I see it's flaws clear as day and he struggles.
you have yet to present any rebut to the argument that is of any accreditation.
I don't value a philosophy based on it's accreditation by some group. I judge them based on my own outlook. I am not an appeal to authority freak like SOME people.
This is not an argument. Growing is not a capacity if maximal greatness; it is actually a sign of a lack of maximal greatness.
To match your style, I'll just say....you clearly don't understand the argument.
It is to grow in greatness; however, that doesn't mean that it is great when it finishes growing or that it is great as it is growing equivalent to a maximally great being. This argument is not a very good one.... I'm sorry to say... it really is pathetic.... I would have expected better from you... well, anyone for that matter could have found a better rebut than that... you clearly do not understand it in the least.
I explained my understanding of what the argument amounts to. You never gave a clarifying rebuke, you never, up until this last argument of yours, so much as addressed a single point I brought up. That's not your style. Your style is just dismissive and ignorant.
It is pathetic that you and others think these ontological proof of god's existence arguments are well thought out. I didn't expect any better from you. You sir are a broken record. I have your argument style figured out. You have absolutely nothing but attempts to discredit the intelligence of your opponent in your rhetorical toolkit.
you want to make it seem like this is some sort of advanced topic that only the academically connected can grasp and address and it's not true
I understand quite clearly what the argument assumes, and the sophistry it attempts to pass off as philosophy. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to look at greatness in any way that doesn't support your conclusion. After all you are in the camp of people who think the ability to imagine a being supposed to be maximally great necessitates that a being that fits that description exists. whoopie! You know some educated blockheads that agree with you. If that's what you think it takes to appear better informed, in the eyes of naive worshipful types like yourself, so be it.
We each think the other has a poorer grasp of the subject. I think I understand the argument better than Plantinga. I see it's flaws clear as day and he struggles.
There is no way that you can understand this argument better than philosophers who study it 24/7 professionally. I have tried explaining it to you but you refuse to accept the rebuts. Hence, I am banning you.
