If, in any constructed proof in any logic system, the axia can be doubted, then the conclusion can be safely doubted. This seems to be the fundamental weakness of ontological attempts at proving God.
-How do we know that the existence of maximal excellence is even possible?
-How can the inherent conflict between omniscience and omnipotence be resolved?
-What - exactly - is 'wholly good'?
-I can easily imagine a possible world in which a being could not be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.
-It is not readily apparent that possibility of a maximally great being entails the existence of a maximally great being.
It strikes me that Anselm and all of his philosophical descendants have taken great pains to ensure that they set the parameters they need to achieve the conclusion they want (and no other). Let's set different parameters to see how silly the whole thing is:
-A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it has long ears, eats clover, and hops about in W.
(leaving out the middle bits)
-Therefore, rabbits are maximally great beings.
Boru
-How do we know that the existence of maximal excellence is even possible?
-How can the inherent conflict between omniscience and omnipotence be resolved?
-What - exactly - is 'wholly good'?
-I can easily imagine a possible world in which a being could not be omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.
-It is not readily apparent that possibility of a maximally great being entails the existence of a maximally great being.
It strikes me that Anselm and all of his philosophical descendants have taken great pains to ensure that they set the parameters they need to achieve the conclusion they want (and no other). Let's set different parameters to see how silly the whole thing is:
-A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it has long ears, eats clover, and hops about in W.
(leaving out the middle bits)
-Therefore, rabbits are maximally great beings.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
