Terrible Atheist Argument #1

[MindForgedManacle]

That was my response. Only I use the word anthropomorphism, because I think it's a human-centric notion of greatness.

Human created, but not human-centric. A Maximally Excellent Being is a being unexcelled in all possible worlds. But what attributes one thinks the MEG must have in order to be such is up to one's own choosing. Is a personal being "greater" or is one whom is not?

But what if you make a substitution, replacing the word "great", which refers to a subjective concept, with something else? Like "taerg", where taerg represents nothing antropocentric or subjective, but only a set of properties (like omnipotence, omniscience, etc)?

I'm not actually sure what that accomplishes. If "taerg" can be used as a subsitution to avoid subjectivity, then I can use "tihsllub" as a subsitution for any subjectivity with the Worst Imaginable Being and establish its existence just the same.

My main point is that theists will not accept the metaphysical consequences of accepting this a valid operating procedure. I can create a valid ontological argument for the existence of the Weakest Conceivable Being[u], otherwise known as the [u]Maximally Excelled Being, a being who's greatness (knowledge, power and goodness) is excelled by all others in all possible worlds.

I can make one for the Worst Imaginable Being, who is a Maximally Evil Being and to exist in all possible worlds (and thus the actual one) is worse than to not exist in all of them.

Or how about the Most Excellent Customer Service? It must exist in the actual world because for customer service to be available in all possible worlds is greater than to be possible in only some. Thus it must be actual.


This argument style is just frankly ridiculous.

Further, I don't think omnipotence or omniscience are coherent attributes.

That seems to escape the subjectivity, right?

That remains to be seen I guess.