(June 19, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Which, again, merely presumes without justification that existence is a component of maximal greatness, which is an entirely subjective criteria asserted out of convenience. I would, for example, suggest that a being capable of doing all of the things a god is purported to do, while simultaneously not existing, is far greater than a being hamstrung by this requirement that he must exist to do things: the latter has a limitation that the former does not.
But then, I too would be making an argument based on my own subjective opinions of what greatness entails, which is good for the hypothetical but doesn't escape my main point, which is that the ontological argument relies exclusively on unsupported opinions of the criteria it seeks to explain, which doesn't exactly count for a lot.
If you had the choice to be stuck in a cage with one of two hungry lions who have all the same properties, except one exists in the actual world, and the other possibly exists, but not actually. Which one would you choose?
While overcoming adversity or handicap is commendable I don't think there is anything which logically makes it greater (emotionally perhaps). In this separate argument which you have created to knock down, it leads to absurdity, and therefore it is not possible (given the principle of sufficient reason). I don't see how it effects the ontological argument.
