A unified version of Plantinga and Maydoyle's ontological argument by domatron23

I think you've successfully created an argument whose inanity density levels are high enough that it could be used as an unconventional warhead. :PGabuEx

Take that uranium!

One point I don't understand: A seems wrong by default. How can something be perfect by just "being"? B is the only perfection.Genetic_Code

Yeah A is pretty much the big point of contention and once again an ontological argument is reduced to the "existence is not a predicate" argument.

(A) Not true (like G_C said)

(B)What would greatness refer to?

(D) This is not true imo. Perfection is achieved from the collection of properties, how can one property alone bestow perfection?

(4) I dont understand that. :? (and consequently, everything that follows :P)

O_WOW! My brain just died a little!:|

No. 5&6 isn't making much sense! "Limited greatness" is "perfection" if it is common to every living being?

One point I don't understand: A seems wrong by default. How can something be perfect by just "being"? B is the only perfection.Genetic_Code

You have a definition error with "being is perfection" - right away you've implied imperfect beings cannot exist - you don't need the later contradiction, you simply have to prove point A. I could add that you cannot claim necessary existence from contradiction (at least, if you're planning to win the debate :P ) but everyone already nailed the root problem.

You have a definition error with "being is perfection" - right away you've implied imperfect beings cannot exist

subrosian

I think it'd be more correct to say that the assertion is that being is necessary for perfection - that is, there cannot be a perfect being that does not exist - rather than to say that being it itself perfection.  "A perfection" is very different from "perfection".

Of course, now we're into the question of whether existence is actually capable of changing anything in the being itself, and I maintain that that assertion has already been pretty much beaten into submisssion and is pretty well untenable by now if anyone has read past attempts at the ontological argument.