OntologicalSpider

Yes would agree. In modal logic lingo that's essentially saying the same thing

No, I believe a maximally great being exists. As I said, if you want to justify calling that being Brahma you need to prove other tenants of Hinduism

Is impossible for God to exist?

I've already answered that multiple times

If knew what the producer wrote of his own volition before he wrote it, that still doesn't mean I had any causal relation to that.

If we're talking about two options before us, then there is a 50/50 chance they will take either option, since there are two choices. If we're getting into possible worlds where everyone would (somehow) freely choose God of their own volition, then that's great. I wish we were in that world.

But that world being actualized doesn't say anything about the being being more maximally great. A world where everyone was a theist is better than another world, but that world being actualized doesn't effect the nature of the MGB. The MGB would still be maximally great if no world existed.

No.

The answer to your question is that, a maximally great being exists. On just the OA alone, we have no justification for relating this being to the religion of Hinduism. Other arguments would have to be brought in for that to happen.

Imagine we found a body in the woods. There could two causes at this point. A human, or a predator did it. If the investigators determined the cause was human on let's say a footprint rather than a paw print near the body, you're the guy going, "I knew Bill Jones did it!!"

We can't jump to Bill Jones doing anything on just a footprint near the body. That doesn't tell us Bill Jones it tells us human. In order to prove Bill Jones was there we need additional evidence.

That's what's happening with the argument. The argument alone tells us "maximally great being". To then give this being a name and a corresponding true religion, we need more evidence.

It would be impossible for this being to have every human being that ever existed and will exist to accept Him rather than reject Him, yet somehow keep their free will in tact. Either there is a free choice to accept Him or there is an agent coercing them. If the former is true some will undoubtedly choose the opposite at times.

And yes you're absolutely right that if God foreknows what we choose, that excludes us choosing the other possibility.

But my response is that God knowing what we choose, actually has no causal relation to us choosing it.

If I know the end of a movie before they make it, my knowledge of that movies ending makes the ending certain, but it doesn't mean I actually caused the ending. Or the actors were robots who were being coerced. So in that sense they're still free.

Acting amiably to attempt to influence people liking you and "MAKING everybody of their own free will to accept you" are obviously not the same.

Divine foreknowledge doesn't necessitate that we don't actually choose our actions

To justify calling this being "Brahma" would necessitate that the other tenants of Hinduism are true. That's outside the scope of this argument

I'm afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood my last comment. If we look at solely the Ontological argument, we could deduce that a being like Brahma possibly exists. I do not believe that to be the case, as I said, because there are many other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

If we look at the Ontological argument alone, we don't get Christianity, we don't get Islam, and we don't get Hinduism. We get a maximally great being

You can't have a being **make** anyone do anything of their own volition. That's a logical contradiction

I wasn't refusing to offer arguments against them, I'm saying the better option would be to offer a positive case for Christianity.

Is it possible Brahma exists? If we look at just the Ontological argument alone, supposing  Brahma meets the requirements of a MGB, then yes, just on that argument alone that could be a possibility.

I do not believe that to actually be the case however. We have much more than the ontological argument. After we establish a MGB, we don't have which particular religion is true, we have monotheism.

Well no, I would disagree with that. Adding all powerful doesn't necessitate that any being exists, it would have to be a maximally great being in order for us to get the syllogisms to work. That can't happen with just random things. Or just omnipotent things. Maximal greatness requires more than just all powerful.

I wouldn't try to disprove the existence of Allah or Brahma. I would present a positive case for Christianity, and that would suffice. Or, if not, look at comparisons between YHWH, Allah and Brahma and see which one would be most logical. I'm not that familiar with the denomination of Hinduism that worships Brahma, but I can off the top of my head think of reasons why YHWH is the true God of Abraham rather than the Muslim deity.

I don't see any problem with that unless you **arbitrarily** insert existence as one of its attributes. Anselm didn't do that, in the argument you formulated you extrapolated necessary existence in all possible worlds from the definition of maximal greatness. It's not circular its linear.

In regards to your other argument,  I don't think that's a very good argument, one way to look at it is....what makes a being convincing everyone of His existence more maximally great? What that would mean is, given the free will of human creatures, a being that did this would wind up with a world where there exist a large amount of people who are fully convinced of this being's existence, yet willfully choose to reject Him.

This possible world then means that these creatures were better off NOT being fully persuaded, as the former would yeild a greater rejection and a greater punishment.

 We're sidetracking into soteriology and Divine foreknowledge, but that's one way I would approach that. Perhaps Dr. Franklin has some better thoughts.

I see no problem with this at all.

You call this being omnicorn, I argue the horse likeness and horn are arbitrary and unnecessary to this beings existence. Let's get rid of those.

If we get rid of those we'll need a new name for this being.

Since He exists self sufficiently, how about something like...I am?

I think we're getting somewhere.

So long as "brahma" exhibits, according to Hinduism, the qualities of a MGB, it could very well be the case the ontological argument supports that beings existence. The ontological argument doesn't prove Christianity unfortunately it just proves Theism. We would need additional arguments to show why out of YHWH, Allah, and Brahma (the only ones that really exhibit Omni qualities) YHWH is the true one.

So, what you're positing, is an immaterial, omnipotent, omniscience,  morally perfect being you call "unicorn"?

Do you not see what happened?

We started off with a simple one horned horse, and in order to get the syllogisms to work we had to expand that definition to have the being exhibit the attributes of God.

Accept you call this Omni being "unicorn" and I call the Omni being God, as an immaterial reality cannot exhibit horse likeness or possess a horn.

Congratulations on your conversion to theism. My work here is done. ;)

You can't just arbitrarily change the definition of things that exist. Bone and soft tissue cannot survive high heat and pressure. Again if you're positing that they can you're exiting the definition of that subject

A possible world isn't a world where anything is possible, it's a world where possible things could be.

But a unicorn, again supposing we actually use the definition of what that is, cannot exhibit maximal greatness for the following reasons

A unicorn does not have the cognitive facilities to be omniscient. Since omniscience requires knowledge of all truths, a unicorn, by nature of what it is, does not know all truths. A unicorn does not know 2+2 = 4 how many animals real or imagined know that E=mc squared?

A unicorn, being an animal, cannot exhibit moral perfection. There are no faculties for it to know moral truths.

A unicorn cannot be omnipotent,  it is merely a mythological horned horse. The Minotaur could probably beat it in a fight.

A unicorn made of light? We're so far from the definition we started from. What of a possible world where no photons exist?

Let me formulate it this way

A unicorn is a mythological horse with one horn

Horses are made of bone and soft tissue

A being made of bone and soft tissue cannot survive extreme heat and pressure.

When we try to conceive of a unicorn that could, we have to step outside the definition that's already set. Again it's like saying four sided triangle. But let's just grant you a heat resistant unicorn for the sake of this discussion.

Aside from the fact that a unicorn cannot exhibit maximal greatness for a variety of reasons, the unicorn analogy fails because a MGB has to exist in all possible worlds. A world where no matter exists would exclude the unicorn. Therefore we can't have a mg unicorn

A possible world though is not just any world at random you can think up. It has to be logically possible. For example, a possible world with four sided triangles is NOT a possible world . Its logically incoherent

A world where the matter a horse is made of can survive the sun is not an actually possible world. In order to get that to work you would have to violate the definition of horse/unicorn,  or say that this animal is made of some special, heat resistant material.

To which I would grant, but then reply with a possible world where NO matter exists. Your unicorn could not survive that possible world. Which leads back to my original point, that a unicorn can exist in some possible worlds but not all

Because if we're conceiving this animal as actually existing, it would be obvious it cannot. How many horses do you know could survive the surface of the sun? Horn or no horn

But  a possible world isn't a fictional world. When we say possible world we don't mean a fantasy world, we simply mean a world in which we can conceive. A world in which the world we live in now could have been

A unicorn by definition is a mythological horse with one horn. We can conceive of this animal existing in some possible worlds. In the world I posited, if a unicorn could survive that, it no longer meets the definition of unicorn. Any real animal would be destroyed in this possible world. To say that the unicorn survives this possible world violates the nature and definition of a unicorn

Again no, the MGB is not defined as simply existing ..He is defined as being maximally great. The whole point of the argument is that if an MGB exists in just one possible world, then, He must exist in all possible worlds otherwise this being is not maximally great.

A is the greatest possible being

It is possible A exists

A exists in some possible worlds.

If A exists in some possible worlds, A exists in all possible worlds, because a being that exists in some worlds but not others is inferior to a being that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a truly maximal great being exists in all worlds

How did you jump from it is possible a MGB doesn't exist to it is necessary that a MGB doesn't exist?

Since it is logically possible a MGB does exist you can't have the necessary non existence of a MGB. A MGB is logically possible so it's non existence is not necessary.

Which of the premises do you reject? And why do you reject them?