Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
If we're talking about a maximally great being's omniscience, then we're talking about this maximally great being's ability to know all there is to know. Its absurd to imagine that there is a being who's knowledge surpasses one who's knowledge encapsulates all that there can be known. If we're talking about a maximally great being's omnipotence, we're talking about this maximally great being's ability to actualize any possible state of affairs. Its absurd to talk of a being who can surpass a being who's omnipotence can actualize any possible state of affairs. When we talk of a being who is maximally moral, we're referring to a necessary being who (probably poorly defined) is all sustaining and true to his complete nature. It is absurd to to talk of a being who can out surpass one's own sustaining values and duties.
In my opinion, the ontological argument starts off as more of a mind exercise, rather than direct evidence for God.
Its wrong footed to get hung up on quantities of "maximal" (at least at the beginning of the argument, and/or whether or not these maximal abilities are intrinsic). As far as great making abilities are concerned there probably are intrinsic maximums; There must be a limit (regardless of whether that limit is extrinsic or intrinsic),
however, that's not really the point of the Ontological Argument.
All that said though, I still don't see anything in Plantinga's version of the argument that says anything about a maximally great being having a maximum number of properties. Plantinga seems to define only 3 major properties.
Comment