It is possible that a maximally great being exists
No it's not.
Why would it exist except to pacify the fears of the humans who need one ie only in imagination can it exist.
The Ontological Argument is Sound
Posts
Total:
170
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I've already answered that multiple times
-->
@disgusted
Is impossible for God to exist?
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I've already answered that multiple times
You have answered my question zero times. You instead chose to answer a different question, that being "Does the OA prove Brahma exists?". You answered that with a 'no'. That is not the question I asked though.
So again I ask you... do you think that Brahma exists in some possible world? The answer to this question is either yes or no.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, I believe a maximally great being exists. As I said, if you want to justify calling that being Brahma you need to prove other tenants of Hinduism
-->
@OntologicalSpider
If we're talking about two options before us, then there is a 50/50 chance they will take either option, since there are two choices. If we're getting into possible worlds where everyone would (somehow) freely choose God of their own volition, then that's great. I wish we were in that world.
Yes, a world where everyone freely chose God of their own volition is a possible world.
But that world being actualized doesn't say anything about the being being more maximally great. A world where everyone was a theist is better than another world, but that world being actualized doesn't effect the nature of the MGB. The MGB would still be maximally great if no world existed.
The very logic that the ontological argument runs off of is that
- An attribute, X, is connected to greatness.
- A being that has more of X is greater than a being that has less.
- The MGB would have to have the most X.
- If there is a world where the MGB with X is possible, then it must be the case for all worlds, since without the most X, the MGB would not be the MGB.
The X in Anselm's case is existence, and the X in my case is "ability to make others believe in itself".
It doesn't matter if the world is "actualized" or not. As long as it is a possible world, then this would apply.
If knew what the producer wrote of his own volition before he wrote it, that still doesn't mean I had any causal relation to that.
If the producer wrote the script of his own volition, then how would you be able to know what he wrote, with 100% certainty, before he even wrote it?
-->
@PressF4Respect
A maximally great being, according to your argument, would possess the ability to convince everyone of His existence?
I agree, God does possess this ability. He could show Himself to everyone right now if He wished. And those who saw and still did not believe He could override their free will and make them accept Him. Unless I'm just not understanding your argument, God already has this ability.
I agree, God does possess this ability. He could show Himself to everyone right now if He wished. And those who saw and still did not believe He could override their free will and make them accept Him. Unless I'm just not understanding your argument, God already has this ability.
-->
@PressF4Respect
I would know what the producer wrote because of Divine foreknowledge, which is what I thought we were discussing<br>
-->
@OntologicalSpider
You said before that you believe Brahma possibly exists, the next question is... Do you believe that Brahma exists in see possible world?No I don't.
So you do believe that Brahma possibly exists but that Brahma does not exist in some possible world.
Therefore you do not believe that all things which possibly exist must necessarily exist in some possible world.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You're ignoring literally every other point I made, and the fact that I said multiple times I believe a maximally great being exists. You're so committed to some shallow semantic victory you think you have one, this conversation is no longer fruitful. I'm going to leave this discussion with you off to the side.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
A maximally great being, according to your argument, would possess the ability to convince everyone of His existence?I agree, God does possess this ability. He could show Himself to everyone right now if He wished. And those who saw and still did not believe He could override their free will and make them accept Him. Unless I'm just not understanding your argument, God already has this ability.
This is my argument:
P1: A being that convinces more people that it exists is greater than one that convinces less people of its existence.
P2: Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince everyone that it exists.
P3: I am not convinced that the MGB exists.
C1: Since there is at least one person that is not convinced of the MGB's existence (me), it cannot be the MGB.
C2: The MGB does not exist.
P1 is the bread and butter of the argument. If you agree with P1, then P2 would naturally follow (from the very definition of the MGB). P3 is true, unless you say that I (somehow) secretly believe in the existence of the MGB, even though I stated that I don't. And the conclusions follow from all three of the premises.
Also, it is explicitly written in the Bible that God is the only true deity, and anyone who believes in other deities is destined for eternal damnation. With that in mind, if God had the ability to convince everyone of His existence, then why hasn't he done so, if He doesn't want to send people to eternal damnation? Or does He want to do that?
I would know what the producer wrote because of Divine foreknowledge, which is what I thought we were discussing
Free will stipulates that if there are two or more outcomes for a being to choose, then each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening.
If you already know the outcome, then the probability for that outcome is 1, and the probability for every other outcome is zero.
It can't be the case that an outcome has both a zero and non-zero chance of happening.
You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
You're ignoring literally every other point I made,
I am just following the ontalogical argument. According to the ontalogical arguments second premise EVERYTHING that could possibly exist exists in some "possible world".
Do you believe this premise is accurate?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@OntologicalSpider
Another problem with the argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Premise 1 states that it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, I can think of a possible world that the MGB exists in. Since the MGB is in the realm of possibility, then it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist.
But if we go to premise 3, it states that the MGB exists in every possible world. That is, it is impossible to think of a possible world where the MGB doesn't exist, since it exists in every possible world.
Premise 1 and premise 3 contradict each other.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Could you say the same thing for Math
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Say what for Math?Could you say the same thing for Math
-->
@PressF4Respect
"This is my argument:
P1: A being that convinces more people that it exists is greater than one that convinces less people of its existence."
Ok, I see now. Let me begin by asking this, let's say the MGB did in fact actualize a world where all people are convinced He exists...
Before the MGB created this world, was He LESS maximally great? Would you say yes or no?
In regards to free will, and why God actualized a world where some people are lost, these are incredibly deep topics people who know far, far more than in do gave wrestled with for millennium. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here, as much as I am deeply enjoying our dialog, you have thrown quite a bit at me. All very intellectually stimulating I will add though.
I'm going to leave you with the above for now, as we can have a possible world where you and I go on forever
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes would agree. In modal logic lingo that's essentially saying the same thing
-->
@PressF4Respect
Replace MGB with Math
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Replace MGB with Math
Math isn't an entity.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
It is a possible world we're talking about here, not an actual one.Ok, I see now. Let me begin by asking this, let's say the MGB did in fact actualize a world where all people are convinced He exists...Before the MGB created this world, was He LESS maximally great? Would you say yes or no?
In regards to free will, and why God actualized a world where some people are lost, these are incredibly deep topics people who know far, far more than in do gave wrestled with for millennium. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here, as much as I am deeply enjoying our dialog, you have thrown quite a bit at me. All very intellectually stimulating I will add though.I'm going to leave you with the above for now, as we can have a possible world where you and I go on forever
Fair enough, and I have enjoyed discussing this with you as well!
-->
@PressF4Respect
so
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Yes. God is a creation of man.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I agree, God does possess this ability.
Says a man. Man can say that because he created the god and assigned it the attributes he wished it to possess.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is no one entity called “math”
-->
@OntologicalSpider
According to the second premise EVERYTHING that possibly exists exists in some possible world. Do you agree with this?Yes I would agree.
So... you said earlier that Brahma possibly exists.
And you now say that possibly existing means existing in some possible world.
So that means you must believe Brahma exists in some possible world.
This is not hard to follow. There is no reason, well no logical reason anyway, that you should be so hesitant to admit that you think Brahma exists in some possible world. Why not just make this admission then?
-->
@PressF4Respect
doesnt matter
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it does
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Also, is math “maximally great”?
-->
@PressF4Respect
Also, is math “maximally great”?
Freudian slip, he subconsciously knows that is a meaningless term so forgot about it when he told you to apply the argument to "math".
81 days later
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, necessary things does not have to be maximally great, laws of the universe is necessary not matter whatAlso, is math “maximally great”?