RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 4, 2017 at 3:10 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2017 at 3:11 pm by SuperSentient.)
(March 4, 2017 at 5:50 am)Jesster Wrote: And that's exactly why I was mostly aiming the argument about possibilities at the rest of the premises. To bring all that back to the first premise, what if the greatest possible being turns out to be nothing more than human? Would you call that being "God" by your definition? If so, then I don't see the point here.
If the greatest possible being turned out to be human, than that being would be God.
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. The greatest possible being turns out to be a human.
3. Therefore, God is human(s)
What points to this as flawed is this:
-What defines "greatness"? There must first be an objective standard for determining greatness. If you have one, is a cat greater than a dog by this standard?
-How do you know the greatest possible being is a necessary being? Why can't I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a necessary being as well then if it is possible for this monster to exist, it must exist in all possible worlds.
(March 4, 2017 at 2:56 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: I would rather follow "the Argument from Design" for the existence of God; there's no magical spell for an argument; God's signs are just enough proof for him.
He would exist outside the context of time and space, also inside it.
You mean the teleological argument?
Hail Satan! 
