Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I believe they can, therefore they can. Two can play at this game.
That doesn't make any sense though. An immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being could easily produce a universe like ours, while a pink unicorn
wouldn't even be able to exist apart from the natural world, let alone create one.
I believe Barcs was attempting to point out that the existence of the universe, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing more than that the
universe exists. Otherwise, I could say the fact that I exist proves the existence of pink unicorns.
I don't see how it would follow that because you exist, then pink unicorns exist. But I see the logic in saying that if a past-finite natural world
exists, then it was created by something that at least has the casual power to produce the natural world, as well as exist apart from it.
Morals are not objective, as I have already proven.
You proved no such thing. You wrote that if objective moral values existed, then everyone would automatically follow those objective moral values. But
that doesn't follow at all. Objective moral values could exist, but people could still disobey them. In fact, you see that all the time. Most people
think it is truly wrong to kill other human beings, but these same people may kill anyway, then afterwards regret it and feel guilty.
It is more an expression of our reaction than an expression of the actuality.
So, you believe that something like torturing and killing innocent children isn't actually or really wrong?
So possibility is the same as actuality. I possess the possibility of murdering every person in this building. Does that mean I just did it?
Nope. I rest my case.
No, that would be a non sequitur. But it would follow that if it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then that maximally great being
exists in one possible world. However, one of the properties of a maximally great being would be necessary being; therefore, this being couldn't fail
to exist and would exist in all possible worlds, including ours.
Prove that it is possible for such a being to exist.
In order to defeat the ontological argument, you would need to show that it is impossible for God to exist.
As for me showing that it is possible for God to exist, I have already demonstrated that in my posts in this thread.
How does an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being maintain individuality? By its very nature, it does not exist because it does not have an
Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing being not have an individual identity?
It is every moment, everything. It is existence. Are you saying existence is our master?
I would say that God is, in a sense, existence, because He has always existed. In a sense, God is the normal state of affairs since He has always
existed and we're the exception to that rule. Our existence is contingent, separate, but wholly dependent on God's will. However, God chose to
create us for our sake.
Your previous assertion that I quoted here implies your belief in a very large amount of possible universes.
When I was referring to possible worlds, I wasn't referring to actually existent universes. Possible world in the context of philosophy means
If this is true, then an infinite number of universes equals an infinite number of chances for this universe to manifest. This increases the
probability from unlikely to certain. This universe exists in an infinite degree of variations, along with an infinite number of other universes with
an infinite number of other variations.
Yes, you would need to postulate an infinite number of universes in order to explain our improbable universe. The issue is there is no evidence for
these universes and the mechanism that generated these universe would, in itself, need to be extremely complex as well as eternal--which is already
starting to sound like God again.
And an actually infinite number of universes would need to be produced before our universe was produced. But our universe has been produced. Which
means, hypothetically we could count the universes prior to ours. So the number of universes produced before ours would be finite. Therefore, there
was a beginning to this string of creations, which, again, points to a first cause.