(June 19, 2016 at 9:45 am)SteveII Wrote:
The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.
I was watching Matt Dillahunty answering a question that stated that a God was necessary, but not in the exact context of this thread, just pointing that out to explain the core concept is not my idea, even though I will phrase it differently ....
It appears that the ontological argument is based on necessity?
Even accepting (which I don't) a God is necessary to create the universe/world why would it need to be a "maximally great being" ?
Why can't the "being" just be sufficient to create a universe? we'll call the being "Noddy"
Why couldn't "Noddy" cease to exist through the creation of the universe/world, by exploding into what we call the "big bang" that arguably lead to our world ?
Why can't the conclusion be "Noddy" existed, but doesn't exist anymore?
I know this will mess with talking to "Noddy" and leave us all alone in the world but the necessity or the conclusion doesn't have to be something humans want ....
Religion is the top shelf of the supernatural supermarket ... Madog
