2 does not follow from 1
3 greater than what?
4 no
5 no

2 does not follow from 1

2. follows from the definition of God and not from 1. If the creation of God isn't the greatest creation imaginable then I can imagine a being whos creation is greater than God's creation. That creator is greater than God which is a contradiction.

3 greater than what?

Greater than not being real.

Meta,
Why would the greatest possible reality be that you are God? It seems be your assumption that the greatest reality is one when where you get the most power, toys, riches, etc.
If you want to be God (since you state this reality would be desirous), the path shouldn't thru gaining power but thru gaining goodness. Goodness is what makes God (either as a reality or as a hypothetical concept) great not his power.

I find it reasonable to believe that a possible (or imaginable) reality in which I am greater is greater than a possible reality in which I am not as great.

If God is perfectly good and all powerful then wouldn't that be good for everyone? It shouldn't matter who God is as long as they are all good and all powerful, it would benefit everyone.
My objection is with the underlying principle that self advancement is always better than self renunciation. I think goodness is always more desirable than any other quality.
Thus the fact that you are not perfectly good disproves your argument above. It actually disproves the whole ontological proof for God, unless the greatest possible reality is one where mankind falls intentionally in order to redeemed. This is a Kabbalistic view

P.S. are the ontological argument and the best of all possible argument from Liebnitz essentially linked? It seems to me the greatest reality would not just include God but the whole world, right?

Well, if the ontological argument fails then so does my argument. The more interesting thing would be a refutation from somebody who thinks the ontological proof is valid.

P.S. are the ontological argument and the best of all possible argument from Liebnitz essentially linked? It seems to me the greatest reality would not just include God but the whole world, right?

They are linked somehow in this argument. I don't think they are linked otherwise.

, Hi, nice to meet you.

Well, if the ontological argument fails then so does my argument. The more interesting thing would be a refutation from somebody who thinks the ontological proof is valid. — Meta

I think the ontological proof is valid. I don't know about sound, but valid certainly.

1. The greatest imaginable reality for me is to be the greatest being imaginable (called God). (Axiom - a greater me implies a greater reality for me)
2. God created the greatest imaginable reality for me. (Easily follows from God's definition)
3. It is greater to imagine this imaginable reality to be real. (Axiom - an existing great entity is greater than the same entity in imagination)
4. That imaginable reality mentioned above is real. (From 3. and the definition of God)
5. I am God. (From 1. and 4.) — Meta

2 is false. You say 2 follows from 'the definition of God', but you haven't given such a definition, so it isn't clear how we are supposed to assess what you say. You do say this:

If the creation of God isn't the greatest creation imaginable then I can imagine a being whos creation is greater than God's creation. That creator is greater than God which is a contradiction. — Meta

But what you say here is fallacious. Its obviously true that if God's creation isn't the greatest creation imaginable then you can imagine a being whose creation is greater. Call the second being 'Schmod'. It does not follow from this that Schmod is greater than God. Schmod's creation is greater than God's creation, but why should that entail anything about the greatness of either God or Schmod? It can only follow on the assumption:

(A) If X is the greatest possible being, necessarily, X only creates the greatest possible creation.

But why on earth would that be true? That's like saying that if Da Vinci is the greatest possible artist, he only paints the greatest possible pictures. But there could be some reason why he, on some occasion, chooses to paint an average picture, even though he could have painted the greatest. There is no reason why God could not be the same.

Moreover, even supposing that it isn't fallacious, it doesn't support (2), since the conclusion of the quotation is that God must have created the greatest possible creation. But (2) says that the creation is the greatest for you, and there is clearly a difference between greatest simpliciter and greatest for some particular person.

PA

God created the greatest imaginable reality for me.

If he did something for you then you are not him.
You cannot therefore be god.

I could not have said it better. I'll also add, though, that there is an implication in the argument that the greatest thing Meta can imagine is the greatest thing possible. In other words, reality or existence is bound by the limitations of Meta's imagination, and there has been no argument given (and no sound argument I can think of) as to why this should be accepted as true.

I am God

No, you're not. Not by any means.

You might be God, but you are not all of God. Likewise God might be you, but you are not all God is.

2. God created the greatest imaginable reality for me. (Easily follows from God's definition) — Meta

This implicitly assumes that a God actually does exist that would create your greatest reality. But does he really? You have not shown that there is in fact such a being. A better formulation of your premise would be the following:

2. If God exists, then he would create the greatest possible reality for me. (Note that I used replaced "imaginable" with "possible" because I believe that what is possible is not necessarily limited by your own imagination, but that is just a nitpick.)

Now what you need to do is demonstrate that such an entity exists in the first place. The problem is, given the premise above we can come to the opposite conclusion. If the problem of evil is anything to go by, then a God, according to your definition of a perfect creator, would not be possible. We don't need to go that far elsewhere to see that our world is not the perfect world, even for ourselves, and that in turn would lead us to conclude that there isn't a God at all.

"God created the greatest imaginable reality for me."

If he did something for you then you are not him.
You cannot therefore be god.

Perhaps it is a question of orientation allowing for a double negation, a kind of sublation, where the ego it is not done away with but retained and preserved in the higher product which supersedes it.

Perhaps something of this reality in the Beatles:

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together

Perhaps it is a question of orientation allowing for a double negation, a kind of sublation, where the ego it is not done away with but retained and preserved in the higher product which supersedes it. — Cavacava

Sounds like the same quality twaddle as the OP.

Perhaps something of this reality in the Beatles:

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together — Cavacava

And we will all come together to sink in a yellow submarine.

Paul said "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" Gal 2.19

I think this is similar to Hegel's "twaddle" about his dialectic.

You might be God, but you are not all of God. Likewise God might be you, but you are not all God is. — Janus

Am I drunk or did you just say the exact same thing two different ways?

Paul said "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" Gal 2.19 — Cavacava

Sounds kind of parasitic doesn't it?

What I said still counts, you cannot be god if god is living in you. That just makes you a vessel for him.

We talk about love changing a person. The person's life (and perhaps their being) is changed, they are not what they were before they fell for the one they love. A lover tries to become one with their love, in a free act of their will. What they do, the way the live is changed, it is infused by their love.

I think Paul is talking about divine love (in Christ) the love which knocked him off his horse, blinded him and enabled him to see, that is the way he describes becoming God's instrument. "Parasitic", no I think it sounds more like possessed...God possessed.

I can't tell if you are drunk from here, but as the great philosopher-walrus, John Lennon, once said:“A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality.”

Let's sum up the problems in your reasoning:

• You didn't give a definition for God.
• God doesn't necessarily create the greatest reality he could.
• Even if he does, it's not necessarily the greatest reality for you.
• Your jumps between imaginable, existing and possible realities don't add up.
• The greater being isn't necessarily the one that can create the greatest reality.
• If you can imagine a greater reality than the existing one, you can't be the God. Greater reality is the one where you're a greater being. You can't create a greater reality. Therefor you're not God.

God possessed — Cavacava

Being taken over by god is still not the same as being god.

If God acts through man, that is, if man is an instrument of God, as the Bible claims Paul was, then who acts?

If God acts through man, that is, if man is an instrument of God, as the Bible claims Paul was, then who acts? — Cavacava

That would then make him a tool still, not god.
So when I drill a hole in the wall, the drill becomes me?

We might become Godly but we are of course not God, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent right now.

If you see a new hole in the wall, perhaps you might ask who put that hole in the wall? Did the drill do it?

If you see a new hole in the wall, perhaps you might ask who put that hole in the wall? — Cavacava

If I did not put it there, then I would certainly ask.

Did the drill do it? — Cavacava

Well I only guided it, but the drill did the work. I would take a long time trying to do it with my finger. But the drill does not become me nor even a part of me.

How do you know?

God is perfect so His act should be perfect. Things however seems not perfect. So the main flow in creation should be toward perfection if this is not possible then God is not perfect or there is no God.

I don't think the Bible thinks of Paul as a piece of equipment, rather I think Paul's agency is God's tool. Paul's becomes one with God's because he recognizes/sees God's being in himself, which is possible only because of his love of God. Paul's willingness to carry out God's purpose is because it is part of his being & God's are merged. Perhaps that is what is meant by being a tool of God.

I don't think the Bible thinks of Paul as a piece of equipment, rather I think Paul's agency is God's tool. — Cavacava

You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment.

Paul's becomes one with God's because he recognizes/sees God's being in himself, which is possible only because of his love of God. Paul's willingness to carry out God's purpose is because it is part of his being & God's are merged. Perhaps that is what is meant by being a tool of God. — Cavacava

That still could not make some god. Being part of god, god being part of one,

Only god is god, and to be god you must fit the description, have the characteristics and properties of god. Having the characteristics on loan does not qualify you as god.