(March 9, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 9, 2017 at 10:20 am)SteveII Wrote: Maydole defines a perfection as a property which is better to have than not to have
Which is a value judgment, and therefore not objective, and not something that can have a "maximal" value.
(March 9, 2017 at 10:20 am)SteveII Wrote: and something is supreme if there is nothing which is even possibily greater or as great as.
There is still no coherent basis for positing a "greatest possible" value. See above.
No, you confuse assessing comparative value with a "value judgement". They are not the same thing. The first can certainly be objective (and is, in this case) and the other is always subjective.
Regarding the property of seeing, is it better to see or not to see? The property of hearing, is it better to hear or not hear? Regarding the property of knowledge, is it better to know something or not know something? Regarding the property of physical ability, is it better to have the power to actualize or no power to actualize? Then there are degrees: Is it better to see near and far or only near? Hear near and far or only near?
It's funny, that your arguments against the Ontological Argument (which you said you could dismiss in a few sentences) are nothing like better atheist thinkers like Oppy (who has debated Maydole on this very subject). Makes you wonder who understands the argument and who doesn't.
