So you are saying it is not possible for a maximally great being to exist.

On what basis?

To be omnipotent would deny the laws of physics, not to mention common sense. Everything that exists has a location and a limited capacity to act.

Laws of physics are not necessary laws.

Even if they were, omnipotence would not be contradictory. We know that not all things that exist are localized (such as minds).

Minds are localized by their physical counterparts, brains. Saying that minds aren't localized is like saying that computer code is not localized. It simply resides in the computer as a physical counterpart to its abstracted code.

And yes, omnipotence contradicts physical laws, such as spontaneously creating out of nowhere (matter cannot be created or destroyed), or other laws that put limits on reality, such as the law of conservation of energy.

it's greater to not exist than it is to exist



i reject this claim, no we do not know this, we barely understand it as it is

Computer code has a physical basis. Minds do not. Indeed minds are affected by brain but are of a different essence entirely.

You are describing why omnipotence is nomologically impossible (assuming that conservation of mass is indeed true and also that the universe is a closed system), but not that it is logically or metaphysically impossible.

All that it requires is that it is logically possible.

"Maximally great": I am very hungry. A maximally great being would be giving me a sandwich. I am not receiving a sandwich, therefore a being could be greater by giving me a sandwich. I am not receiving a sandwich, therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

Q.E.D.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 10:00pm

Minds work through the brain. There is a physical basis for the mind, and that is the brain.

And so what if it's 'metaphysically possible'? Philosophers can't even agree on metaphysics.

It's 'logically possible' to break a sphere up into pieces and then create multiple spheres from it. I don't see how it only matters that it's logically possible, as pure logic removed from empiricism gives unbelievable results.

It only matters that something is logically possible because we are talking about modal possibility.



I reject "A maximally great being would be giving me a sandwich"

But nice try.

and until you realize any perception of "maximally great" is subjective you won't realize why your argument fails miserably.