Great talk my man, was more of a friendly discussion of things we know than a debate, looking forward to more in the future, especially when you read up on some interesting topics related to our subject! 😉
@vladimir_susic_jna Sure. I will come back on this. Soon!
I thought of an argument. Can god convert 2 chocolates into 3 chocolates? If yes then, god defies math. You said god can't defy math
For the omnipotent paradox, your rebuttal was the situation is illogical. So god can't do it. why is that situation illogical? there are two different outcomes. Either god can lift the stone or not. Both the situations are completely logical. In both the situtatins god proves that he is not omnipotent
In our debate when I asked why God being maximally great makes him necessary, you said that it's because necessary existence is greater than non-existence, since god is the greatest he necessarily existsA counter argument could bethe greatest possible thing would be one that does everything god does, while not existing
Can I convert the modal ontological argument like the following?God is the greatest.Existence is great.So God exist.Is this an accurate reinterpretation of the modal ontological argument?This argument gives no room for god's impossibility where as modal ontological argument has to assume (or prove) the possibility of god.If its the same as modal argument, then1) This is just putting the word existence in the definition of God.2) It's not just for MGB, even a not- so-maximally great being also existA unicorn, 1 quadrillion dollars of cash are some examples of a not-so-maximally great being. So 1 quadrillion dollars of cash exist?
@mani_bharathy As I read your post, you assume your foundation argument: That God is the greatest. You might better have said "IF God is the greatest and existence is great, then God exists." I would add, since God greatest is not provable, and the greatness of existence is debatable depending on who is asked, then "So God exists" is a nonsequitur which proves nothing.
@silverbee Yes. That was my opponent's argument. I just re-organised his arguments in a way so that the flaws in his argument are easily visible
@ewatemberg With all due respect, I don't think you've even began to understand the background as to why and how the argument works. Watch my introductory speech of the debate with @sharkb8 and take a look at the basics of Modal Logic.Cheers.
@vladimir_susic_jna care to reply to any of my comments?
@mani_bharathy I think all of them are as much of a failure for much the same resons I pointed out in the discussion. Some however are outright nonsensical.
@vladimir_susic_jna Okay. free for lounge? so that I can clarify my comments