Proof by Blatant Assertion?
Why not? For all we know, NE could just be the empty space the universe sits in. If someone wants to worship it, I say good luck with that.
Sure. If circulus in probando is valid and the fallacy of the excluded middle becomes the Law of the Excluded Middle anything goes.
Well if you allow an empty space that the universe sits in, then accepting NE by definition isn’t circular, since the empty space would be non-contingent and necessary to give existence a home. If you need proof that such an empty space exists (not unreasonable, IMO), then I agree that accepting NE would be circular. My point was that either way, there’s nothing here that addresses sentience or omnipotence (or really, any degree of potence), which are really the attributes of God that people question.
If you claim to have proved the existence of the NE by virtue of having defined it as such, then, yes, it is circular. I agree with you about the lack of any proven, or even defined, attributes of this NE, whether the thing itself has been proved or not. I was cavalierly dismissed in this thread some time ago for using the term universe in a way that was beyond the standards of the discussion. Perhaps it is time to set up some explicit definitions. I propose:
Universe - one of the ontologically possible worlds.
Multiverse - the set of all possible universes.
Metaverse - the matrix (if you will) that all the universes are set in.
Given these definitions I would say that the ultimate fallacy of the Ontological Argument is that it asumes that any of these entities are in any way constrained or compelled by our ability to think about them.
Omnipotent doesn’t require blind faith.
“Existence has infinite power”
“Existence has all power”
“Existence is all powerful”
The only part that this isn’t addressing is sentience.
being = existence
existence is all power
God is an all powerful being; therfor God (an all powerful being) exists.
aka God = existence
existence has all power
God has all power
existence = being
etc…
I exist. Am I all powerful?
Are you existence itself?
Are you THE existence or are you AN existence (an existent actually)?
So God is just ‘existence’? Why not call it ‘existence’ then, since there’s already a word for it. Then you can use ‘God’ to refer to those sentient omnipotent entities that people think can hear prayers and whatnot.
zwaldd,
Don’t ask me, ask Libertarian! The argument in general is how Libertarian is distinguishing God from existence itself, and not just confusing it with the existence “proof”.
I disagree. I find that defining greatness in the absolute subjective renders that objective by default - both for objects and subjects.
“greatest possible being (existence)”
Infinite selection, given subject to infinite de-selection.
When dealing with beings aware of existence, beings that presumably have an intent of some sort… greatness is then defined not only by their inability to be de-selected, but also whether that is what they INTEND, or WANT.
So, existence, is “all powerful”, as in, the arguments for why existence isn’t de-selected are strong … namely that we percieve our existence, which is impossible if existence doesn’t exist – as thought wouldn’t exist, possible delusion wouldn’t exist.
When working with greatness in terms of beings aware of existence, that they make decisions (presumably) of life and death (such as creating existence – bringing into being – there/not there – making decisions based upon this)…
Then you have beings that are defining themselves based upon their perception of their ability to be one step ahead of anything that would circumvent their intent, and thus make them a lesser being.
Basically, what happens, is you reduce greatest possible being (that is aware that it exists) to a being that makes a suicide contract with all other possible beings. Even if this being is de-selected by other beings through such a contract, it is ontologically MORE perfect than a being who survives longer but never makes such a contract. So what you have here, is a being de-selected from existence (doesn’t exist) being MORE prefect than a being who does exist. The greatest possible being that is aware that it exists, would be the being who makes the suicide contract and is never selected by any other possible being aware of existence (under the perception of that you observe that life and death occur).
In this instance of greatest possible being, which is not only reasonablly defined tautologically, but also reasonably acted upon (we all have the choice to make this contract) – you can have a being who is dead that is greater than all possible interpretations of God throughout prior human history – ith the greatest being, being the one who makes the contract and is never de-selected.
In this manner, you can observe whether or not God has made such an intimate contract with you – if not, then any being who does make such a contract is a greater possible being than this hypothetical God, EVEN if you de-select them.
But we don’t know what the “greatest possible being that is aware that it exists” is. There may not be a self aware being that makes a suicide contract with all other beings.