I'll be eagerly waiting for when you find what is off then. — Amalac
, I am saying: «If God exists, then God might have this and that attribute». — Amalac
Only if you hold the dogmatic view that yours is the «true» definition of omnipotence, does «but the word can no longer be used to characterise God» follow. — Amalac
The magnitude of positive reality, taken precisely, beyond the limits or boundaries in the things that have them. — Amalac
But if that still bothers you, let's use this definition instead: a simple quality which is absolute, and expresses without any limits whatever it does express. — Amalac
I don't see how that's «nonsensical»Leibniz' definition of perfection is: «The magnitude of positive reality, taken precisely, beyond the limits or boundaries in the things that have them. And where there are no limits, that is, in God, perfection is absolutely infinite. "
No it doesn't. The argument does not rely on the «divine cogito» nor on the experience of «necessary thinking activity», nor on the idea that God gives us an idea of the infinite.I think the following article, although lengthy, constitutes a direct response to your OP.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.