Nebogipfel wrote:

Right, so:

1. the maximally great being is superlative in every property.
2. There are some properties the maximal being does not have.
3. Therefore, the maximally great being is not superlative in every property.

1 and 3 are a contradiction. In other words, a maximally great being makes no sense.

A maximally great being - i.e an almighty being - cannot be a maximally ungreat being. The property of being effete or weak is just an absence or deficiency of the property of strength and might, and not something to which a great being would aspire to. Hence, there is no contradiction in the maximally great being exhibiting properties characteristic of greatness and not impotence.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Then why-the-literal-fuck are you trying to explain God to the atheists? Your explanation, therefore, is necessarily a bit confused.Oh, wait. You just want to talk about existence. Bring on Yablo conceivability and the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

The point that Dawkins raises is a valid one. If there is a God, where did he come from and why does he exist? Surely, it would be more probable that there was no uncreated divine agent? It appears to be a good argument against the very possibility of God's existence. However, if it is admitted that it would have been simpler and more likely if nothing were in existence then the existence of anything at all becomes a problem for the atheist as that would mean that God may not require an explanation for his existence after all.

BooBoo wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

A maximally great being cannot have the property of…

An interesting concept.

God cannot cease to exist. But is that a limitation?

Of course. It's so simple everyone can do it except him.

Also, how do you know that?

BooBoo wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

Right, so:

1. the maximally great being is superlative in every property.
2. There are some properties the maximal being does not have.
3. Therefore, the maximally great being is not superlative in every property.

1 and 3 are a contradiction. In other words, a maximally great being makes no sense.

A maximally great being - i.e an almighty being - cannot be a maximally ungreat being. The property of being effete or weak is just an absence or deficiency of the property of strength and might, and not something to which a great being would aspire to. Hence, there is no contradiction in the maximally great being exhibiting properties characteristic of greatness and not impotence.

How on earth do you know what such a great being would aspire to? Have you met this thing you are talking about? Had a chat with him have you?

BooBoo wrote:

Anontheist wrote:
If God can exist without explanation, then so too can the universe. So can existence. So can a bacon sandwich.

God's existence is not separate from the existence of anything, including a bacon sandwich. As for the universe existing without explanation, you need to examine the cosmological argument.

Besides being every bit as stupid as the ontological argument, it does not demonstrate that the universe has an explanatiion (i.e. cause). Rather, that is one of the premises upon which it is based.

BooBoo wrote:

Anontheist wrote:
If God can exist without explanation, then so too can the universe. So can existence. So can a bacon sandwich.

God's existence is not separate from the existence of anything, including a bacon sandwich. As for the universe existing without explanation, you need to examine the cosmological argument.

If something exists, then it is possible for a maximally great bacon sandwich to exist.

Once again, a bacon sandwich, or any contingent being, cannot be a maximally great being.

The maximally great bacon sandwich would not be contingent. Duh.

I'm getting quite depressed now.

It only counts if you're maximally depressed.

Goddamnit, now I want a back in sandwich.

You should always put your back into things that are important.

BooBoo wrote:However, if it is admitted that it would have been simpler and more likely if nothing were in existence then the existence of anything at all becomes a problem for the atheist as that would mean that God may not require an explanation for his existence after all.

You've missed a critical component of logical argument, here. If it is to be admitted that it would have been simpler if nothing existed, then what induces us to admit that? And certainly, if nothing were in existence, then that is to denote literally nothing. Unless your notion of God is 'nothing', you still have some 'splainin to do. If your notion of God is 'nothing', then you'd better get busy constructing your theology around that idea, and it won't be including any crap along the lines of 'maximal greatness'.

You've already been asked this several times and in various ways by other respondents to your nonsense, and it is now evident that you lack any response to these sorts of challenges. Sure, it's simpler not to provide responses to these sorts of challenges, but you're not going to convert anyone to your belief system by laying low like that.

Thommo wrote:I'm getting quite depressed now.

You're sexy. You don't have to be happy, too.

The maximally great god-eater would not be contingent and would necessarily have eaten all gods. Otherwise it would not be maximally great. Thus necessarily all gods must have been eaten by maximally great god-eaters instantly.

Had humans evolved just a little differently, they [gods] would have never have been imagined into existence.

BooBoo wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

A maximally great being cannot have the property of…

An interesting concept.

God cannot cease to exist. But is that a limitation?

Yes, as denoted by the word 'cannot'.

BooBoo wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Then why-the-literal-fuck are you trying to explain God to the atheists? Your explanation, therefore, is necessarily a bit confused.Oh, wait. You just want to talk about existence. Bring on Yablo conceivability and the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

The point that Dawkins raises is a valid one. If there is a God, where did he come from and why does he exist? Surely, it would be more probable that there was no uncreated divine agent? It appears to be a good argument against the very possibility of God's existence. However, if it is admitted that it would have been simpler and more likely if nothing were in existence then the existence of anything at all becomes a problem for the atheist as that would mean that God may not require an explanation for his existence after all.

You speak with such authority, BooBoo. You seem to know an awful lot. How do you know these things? I mean it just looks like pure arse-born drivel to me. Perhaps you have been privy to some special knowledge though. Moreover, you type like someone unused to your assertions being challenged. You simply respond by posting yet more assertions. It's like this - what you have outlined here as a problem for atheists is no problem for me whatsoever. That's because my atheism is not based upon anything that Dawkins said, or any argument against the existence of God. And now you're upsetting my Thommo, which cannot be allowed. So stop it.

Onyx8 wrote:You should always put your back into things that are important.

And that's how you know I was typing on my phone.

Late to this one. Can I just add this, accepting for point of argument that the OP's first four points stand (which they actually do not)

5. If we accept the principle that something can and does exist rather than nothing, which is true, then we have to logically also accept the principle that a sky-blue pink, three-toed snortiblog can and does exist. I mean, it's fucking obvious.

6. If we accept the principle that something can and does exist rather than nothing, which is true, then we have to logically also accept the principle that a maximally great being can and does exist, and so too must its brothers & sisters, mother & father (all beings have similar antecedents), aunts & uncles, grandparents, and so on. So a currently unknown pantheon of deities can & must exist too.

7. If we accept the principle that shit arguments for god(s) can and do exist rather than no arguments at all, which is true, then we have to logically also accept the principle that the OP presents a shit argument. And who could possibly gainsay that?

BooBoo wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

Right, so:

1. the maximally great being is superlative in every property.
2. There are some properties the maximal being does not have.
3. Therefore, the maximally great being is not superlative in every property.

1 and 3 are a contradiction. In other words, a maximally great being makes no sense.

A maximally great being - i.e an almighty being - cannot...

Then it's not maximally great.

An almighty being... Cannot. Oh the awesome power of theistic idiocy.