(March 4, 2017 at 4:14 am)pool the matey Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 4:05 am)Jesster Wrote: Yeah, I've heard this one before. I don't accept the first two premises to be true. The third premise is a guess that God exists in any possible world in the first place, so I can't accept that to be true either.

For the sake of the argument, it does depend on what God you're talking about. 

As for the argument:

TheAtheologian Wrote:1. God is the greatest possible being.

2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists). 

3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world. 

4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.

5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).

I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.

Number 5 is a wrong conclusion. You say in number 4 that every aspect of God being possible exists in some possible world. Suppose a God is characterized by some religion as someone that can levitate. According to what you say in number 4 only the possible attributes of the God can exist, since the ability to levitate is an impossible attribute in a possible world it follows that "God" exists without the attribute that God is originally defined with, which means that God doesn't exist.

Premise 4 says that every aspect of God is possible (exists in some possible world) since God by definition is the greatest possible being. By accepting premise 1 as a definition of God, all aspects of God are possible. Adding impossible aspects is inconsistent with premise 1.

---

(March 4, 2017 at 4:28 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 4:20 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: The first premise is true if the theist defines God that way (after all, you can't refute a definition unless it is logically inconsistent). The second just means that since God is necessary (must exist), the existence of God implies existing in every possible world (logically impossible to not exist).

I define an apple as a horse with bat wings and mad guitar skills. Do you accept my first premise? Shall I construct an argument about apples using this? While it may not necessarily be a flawed premise, it is a useless one if I want to make any real point with it. It should either be an obvious definition or one that I can demonstrate with previous premises. Where do we draw the line between definitions and bald assertions? This can apply to the second premise as well. I accept neither of them.

The rest of the argument also slips up at the word "possible". Theists aren't able to demonstrate the possibility of any of these things attached to that word here. Until then, this is a useless argument.

An apple has a universal definition.
You would agree though that god has no universal definition, it may be up to religions. Theists can use premise 1 as the definition of their god.

As for "greatest possible being," how are we defining "greatest" here? How can we be sure that the "greatest" possible being can do any of these things before we know what's possible? Where's the data on these possibilities?

---

(March 4, 2017 at 4:29 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: An apple has a universal definition.
You would agree though that god has no universal definition, it may be up to religions. Theists can use premise 1 as the definition of their god.

Then replace "God" in your argument with "Olgiathothle". Are we still talking about the same thing? It works just as well. Are we even talking about something that's possible?

(March 4, 2017 at 4:29 am)Orochi Wrote: Also theists can define till doomsday I don't have to accept the definition. They can say god is x I don't have to accept it as such . And i won't without foundation for the claim.

Especially if the *definition* includes "and it's totes true guys!"

(March 4, 2017 at 4:33 am)Jesster Wrote: As for "greatest possible being," how are we defining "greatest" here? How can we be sure that the "greatest" possible being can do any of these things before we know what's possible? Where's the data on these possibilities?

This being would be independent of what we know, so it wouldn't matter what we all know is possible, just that this being is the greatest being possible. 

"Greatest" would be a manifestation of every logical possibility.

---

(March 4, 2017 at 4:33 am)Jesster Wrote: As for "greatest possible being," how are we defining "greatest" here? How can we be sure that the "greatest" possible being can do any of these things before we know what's possible? Where's the data on these possibilities?

---

(March 4, 2017 at 4:29 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: An apple has a universal definition.
You would agree though that god has no universal definition, it may be up to religions. Theists can use premise 1 as the definition of their god.

Then replace "God" in your argument with "Olgiathothle". Are we still talking about the same thing? It works just as well. Are we even talking about something that's possible?

Yes we would be talking about the same thing. I am just referring to that as one concept of God theists can hold to.

TheAtheologian Wrote:Premise 4 says that every aspect of God is possible (exists in some possible world) since God by definition is the greatest possible being. By accepting premise 1 as a definition of God, all aspects of God are possible. Adding impossible aspects is inconsistent with premise 1.

According to your first premise

Quote:1. God is the greatest possible being.

(emphasis mine)

The greatest possible being by definition can posses only the greatest possible characteristics, impossible characteristics are unfortunately not one among the possible characteristics of the greatest possible being. Suppose a religion include impossible characteristics as one of the possible characteristics of the greatest possible being, ie, God, then it simply follows that God is the greatest impossible being since only an impossible being may posses impossible characteristics, ie, non-existent.

(March 4, 2017 at 4:43 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: This being would be independent of what we know, so it wouldn't matter what we all know is possible, just that this being is the greatest being possible. 

"Greatest" would be a manifestation of every logical possibility.

Okay, use that definition if you want. So do you have this data on what's possible? We don't know to what point "greatness" is possible. Why call it anything until we know to what limit this "greatness" is possible?

More importantly, premise two does not follow at all from here. Show that any being is necessary first. This isn't a simple definition. This is assuming a necessity that has not been shown to exist. The "possible worlds" part is useless as well. Show that any single one of these other "worlds" (which I will assume is not pointing merely at planets) besides our own is even possible.

This all seems to be riding on the idea that anything is possible, which is not a well-backed statement.

@TheAtheologian,

What does "Manifestation of every logical possibility" mean? Logical deduction needs Axioms as a starting point, so this concept of greatest depends on your assumptions then?. Also, to use poor abused Goedel, "Logical possibilities" tend to include mutually contradictory statements. Does a perfect God believe in the Axiom of Choice or not or both?

(March 4, 2017 at 4:53 am)pool the matey Wrote:

TheAtheologian Wrote:Premise 4 says that every aspect of God is possible (exists in some possible world) since God by definition is the greatest possible being. By accepting premise 1 as a definition of God, all aspects of God are possible. Adding impossible aspects is inconsistent with premise 1.

According to your first premise

Quote:1. God is the greatest possible being.

(emphasis mine)

The greatest possible being by definition can posses only the greatest possible characteristics, impossible characteristics are unfortunately not one among the possible characteristics of the greatest possible being. Suppose a religion include impossible characteristics as one of the possible characteristics of the greatest possible being, then it simply follows that God is the greatest impossible being since only an impossible being may posses impossible characteristics, ie, non-existent.

I defined God as the greatest possible being, so no other religion can tinker with it. It is independent of these religions.

Now that I think about this, it would probably be better if I added this in the philosophy section.

(March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:

1. God is the greatest possible being.

2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists). 

3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world. 

4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.

5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).

I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before. 

What do you think of it?

Looks like a mash-up between Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument and Leibniz's argument, both of which can be subverted to provide a better argument that God cannot exist.

(March 4, 2017 at 4:55 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 4:43 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: This being would be independent of what we know, so it wouldn't matter what we all know is possible, just that this being is the greatest being possible. 

"Greatest" would be a manifestation of every logical possibility.

Okay, use that definition if you want. So do you have this data on what's possible? We don't know to what point "greatness" is possible. Why call it anything until we know to what limit this "greatness" is possible?

More importantly, premise two does not follow at all from here. Show that any being is necessary first. This isn't a simple definition. This is assuming a necessity that has not been shown to exist. The "possible worlds" part is useless as well. Show that any single one of these other "worlds" (which I will assume is not pointing merely at planets) besides our own is even possible.

This all seems to be riding on the idea that anything is possible, which is not a well-backed statement.

That is the main problem with it, why assume this "greatest possible being" is necessary? If we do, then it is pushing the concept into existence, which can be done with nearly anything.

However, it does not ride on the idea that anything is possible, but bases itself on whatever is possible.