RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 13, 2017 at 7:11 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2017 at 7:12 pm by SuperSentient.)
(March 13, 2017 at 9:08 am)SteveII Wrote:(March 12, 2017 at 5:48 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: The main problems with this argument is with 1 and 3. First, "great" is a value statement which is contingent upon the subjective viewer. The question is, what constitutes objective greatness? 1 is simply an assertion with no basis in reality than what anyone would personally think to be true.
3 is false since greatness is logically separable from logical necessity. Value statements have no basis in possibility. Just as you can't derive an ought from an is, you can't derive an is from an ought.
Elvis Presley is a great being to many people, I can say that he is a necessary being. It would be no less accurate to say that than to say God is a necessary being. The assertion that God is necessary has no justification. Maximal greatness is subjective if you accept that greatness is subjective, since the measurement of greatness would be subjective, it would apply to whatever you would measure to be the "greatest".
That is a common objection, but there are answers to it. I posted a response a few pages back that I will repost below. Great making properties of god are not subjective like a preference to Elvis' music. These are not properties subject to tastes, aesthetics, etc. It is also important to note that it doesn't matter to the argument if we can even comprehend them.
Quote:
This doesn't answer my objection.
You still haven't defined "greatness".
Saying a specific property is "better to have than to not have" is a value statement, which like I said, is contingent upon the subjective viewer. Same with being supreme.
M1 is false since it assumes that we can deduce what is a "perfection" from what we believe to not be a perfection. In other words, property y is a perfection because its negation x is not a perfection. If M1 is true, then we can expect every negation of every "imperfect" property to be a "perfection", which leads to absurdities.
Quote:Maydole defines a perfection as a property which is better to have than not to have and something is supreme if there is nothing which is even possibily greater or as great as.This is the main problem.
This argument is just a bunch of word salad that uses controversial and ambiguous words and attempts to demonstrate that a metaphysical deity exists from them. You can't prove something exists from a bunch of controversial words.
Quote: Great making properties of god are not subjective like a preference to Elvis' music. These are not properties subject to tastes, aesthetics, etc.You are using it the same way. To say it is better to have wings than fins is the same as saying that Elvis' music is better than any other music. In other words, Elvis' music is a perfection since the properties of all other music is not a perfection.
Hail Satan! 
