(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?
Just another variation of an ontological argument.
Sorry, but you can't define a god into existence.
Basically what this argument does is list some attributes that this god would have, then add one more attribute, which is existence. But existence is not an attribute. To have attributes, the thing under discussion exist in the first place.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
