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.2 does not follow from 1
Greater than not being real.3 greater than what?
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. — Meta
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
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
2. God created the greatest imaginable reality for me. (Easily follows from God's definition) — Meta
"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 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
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
You might be God, but you are not all of God. Likewise God might be you, but you are not all God is. — Janus
If you see a new hole in the wall, perhaps you might ask who put that hole in the wall? — Cavacava
Did the drill do it? — Cavacava
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
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
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.