@Vinny
You forgot that I updated my argument to improve it. The updated one does use axiom S5, it just doesn't try to make the truth of metaphysical naturalism trans-possible worlds true. My updated argument only banks on having to be in at least one possible world in other words.
As for whether its maximal greatness entails necessary existence, I'd say that's not ascertainable. Remember, in this argument using axiom S5, it only deals with epistemic possibility. Once you're working in axiom S5, it's crazy to think you can assume metaphysical possibility because then ANYTHING can become true. And that's all ignoring that not all philosophers and logicians accept axiom S5 as an uncontroversial axiom.
You forgot that I updated my argument to improve it. The updated one does use axiom S5, it just doesn't try to make the truth of metaphysical naturalism trans-possible worlds true. My updated argument only banks on having to be in at least one possible world in other words.
As for whether its maximal greatness entails necessary existence, I'd say that's not ascertainable. Remember, in this argument using axiom S5, it only deals with epistemic possibility. Once you're working in axiom S5, it's crazy to think you can assume metaphysical possibility because then ANYTHING can become true. And that's all ignoring that not all philosophers and logicians accept axiom S5 as an uncontroversial axiom.
