It's not a terribly persuasive argument: what's the more "maximally great being," the one who does all the things theists say he does, or the one that does all of that while simultaneously not existing?
I submit that the latter feat is far more impressive, and thus the maximally great being cannot exist under the premises of the ontological argument.
I submit that the latter feat is far more impressive, and thus the maximally great being cannot exist under the premises of the ontological argument.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
