(June 21, 2016 at 8:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:I am using the word "great" in the same way as in "x is greater than or equal to 3". I believe that is the proper interpretation of greatness as it relates to the argument. For any additive property the MGB has it to the greatest extent.(June 21, 2016 at 2:37 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: For example, a warning traffic sign is an objectively better example of a triangle than a spanakopita.
By an objectively better example of a triangle you are claiming that it's outline is a better fit for the definition of a triangle. A triangle has an objective definition of being a figure with three sides. This is not the case for greatness. There is no objective definition of what constitutes greatness, so whether or not a being fully exemplifies the notion of an objectively great being is a nonsense question. It has no sense in which it is true or false.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 2, 2025, 1:54 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
|
 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God | athrock | 429 | 103012 |
March 14, 2016 at 2:22 am Last Post: robvalue |
|
| Why theists think their irrational/fallacious beliefs are valid | Silver | 26 | 8142 |
May 1, 2014 at 6:38 pm Last Post: Neo-Scholastic |
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
