by Terry 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
this makes no sense to me, why does it have to exist in every world because it exists in one? thats like saying if i sit in one chair i sit in every possible chair
"3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
this makes no sense to me, why does it have to exist in every world because it exists in one? thats like saying if i sit in one chair i sit in every possible chair"
In this context, "maximally great" means a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. It would then exist in every possible world, according to the one making the definitions and playing these particular word games. You're right that it makes no sense, which is a good indication that the initial assumption(s) is deeply flawed.
What a good post Terry... Isn't that the same argument Christians use today? I'm not questioning God...but really, isn't that what we do? If someone says, "God can't exist because..." then we say, "You say that because you don't understand the greatness of God. You are relying on your OWN understanding."
Gives me something to think about, Terry...
This is fun. I want to come up with my own proof of God. I realize that my first assumption might be suspect, but that isn't uncommon for proofs of God.
1. Something impossible is actually possible. (Many people believe this when putting faith in things that are impossible.) 2. Therefore, anything is possible, even things that are impossible. 3. Therefore, anything is not only possible, but a certainty in at least one possible world (Since all possible worlds contain all possibilities). 4. Let's define God as someone who is so supremely supreme that he is the supreme being in every possible world. 5. God exists in at least one possible world. (see #3) 6. If he exists in one possible world, he exists in every possible world. (see #4) 7. God exists in our world. 8. God exists. 9. If you manage to somehow prove that God is impossible, then you have actually confirmed #1 and made this argument even stronger.
Anselm Rocks! Thanks for this post Terry.
His foundational argument dovetails into the Best of All Possible Worlds argument.
If there is a best that presupposes that there is a worst. Because there is a best isn't to say the other does not exist, it actually confirms the opposite exists or there would be no need for a distinction of "Best."
Some people have a hard time eating what is best for their bodies. It doesn't mean that a healthy way of eating doesn't exist: but junk food and candy sure are hard to pass up. We make eating and lifestyle choices every day.
Could God have created a heaven's and Earth in which man did NOT disobey and fall bringing death, corruption and futility?If not---why not?
If so--why didn't He?
Yes, God could have. However: in so doing He would not allow people choices. There would not be any good to do, all would be good already. There would not be taste or variety. We would hold the same opinions. There would not be will power or discipline: there would be nothing to tempt us and we would have no choice but to do what is good. Also: without challenge and corruption there isn't triumph. For Anselm as a Catholic death was not the end of the story. Jesus died on the cross, and then there was Easter. We would be robots if there was not only the choice to disobey but also things that tempt us to disobey. As a Catholic we believe in free will and making continually making choices daily. Also: death isn't the end and life on earth, in terms of eternity, isn't very much at all.
In other words, God is omnipotent in theory, but not in effect.
There are often things, as people, that we have in our power to do and do not do. Sometimes we are lazy or sometimes there are multiple things we can do and choose to do one thing and not others. Sometimes we can do something but we do not do it because it would be unkind. Reminds me of a mother's wisdom "just because you can doesn't mean you should."
My understanding is that God is like a parent. Parents allow their children to make their own mistakes if they really want them to learn for themselves. God allows us to have some power and allows Himself to be absent/ignored in order for us to choose Him. It doesn't mean He isn't there, it just means we can choose other then Him. When I see my mom I can hug and kiss her: the opportunity is there, but I can choose not to. (I give her hugs and kisses)
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
So what is a maximally great being, Burns? Totally subjective.
I hereby conceive of the maximally tasty cheeseburger that the mind can conceive.
Therefore God exists. He is the tastiest chesseburger possible.
Now take a bite. Does that burger fill your belly?
No? Awwwww.
What a crock of shit. Lulz.
Its an interesting article, Terry - even though I had to read it slowly to get through it :) I've never heard of him before, or his Ontological proof, so I need some time to think about it before I comment.
Tammy
1.In all existing things there must be a supremely good, almost as good, good and less than good among them.
Imagine what Plato would have to say about such a proof! First of all, define goodness. Next define what one would have to do to qualify as being in one of the four "classes" of goodness (or is it a continuum of goodness levels with only 4 cited just to randomly say that some one thing must be the most good of all).
2.Thus, all things are good in some degree. In that degree their goodness is derrived from the most supremely good among them.
Now why would that be? Why would several objects with varying levels of an attribute have to all derive their levels of that attribute from the object it is expressed greatest in? Thats like saying every human's intelligence is derived from Stephen Hawking.
This whole argument could be approcahed just as absurdly from evil. Everything is either surprmely evil, very evil, doctor evil, or not so evil. So everyone is somewhat evil. So clearly we all get our evilness from the most evil person in the universe. Duh?
this makes no sense to me, why does it have to exist in every world because it exists in one? thats like saying if i sit in one chair i sit in every possible chair"
In this context, "maximally great" means a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. It would then exist in every possible world, according to the one making the definitions and playing these particular word games. You're right that it makes no sense, which is a good indication that the initial assumption(s) is deeply flawed.
that's a tautology though, if you rewrite that with that definition of maximal excellence it says:
"3. If a being exists in every possible world, then it exists in every possible world."
Also I'm assuming 'every world' is along the lines of M theory, if so I still don't get why something that exists in one facet of a multiverse has to exist in all.
Makes no sense to me, seems deeply illogical.
