*1-Do they both not deal with the figure, `God,´ and hÃs existence?
*2-Mine may not include perfection, but it does include his existence, and since you are all up for sematics, if I said `God is imperfect´ you would disagree with this aswell, as it doesn’t deal with perfection, but imperfection, rather.
*3-We are not using existence and non-existence, we are using the existence of God.
*4-We both agree that he is using ontological proof to prove the existence of God, as am I, and I am using it to prove the lack of existence.
*5-No, I am not using something else, we both are discussing the exact same thing, sir. I think you are trying to twist our words or bring in `technicalities´ into this argument to make you look more intelligent than I, which, obviously, right now, is not true. You are making yourself an ass, just give in and admit your falure, and we can continue this argument logically.
By our definition, God is a perfect being.
We are imperfect, thus our definition is not perfect, and God may not
be perfect.
If God isn’t perfect, he doesn’t have to exist.
Thus, God may or may not exist.
By my definition, as well as many other Atheist, Agnostic, et ceteras’ definitions, God is an imperfect being that doesn’t exist and is from our imaginations.
A quality of not existing is, in itself, not existing.
Thus, God does not exist.
Again, how can they? The only qualities you both state in your God concepts [i]exclude[/i] each other, so how could you possibly both be talking about the same thing? To be technical, the arguments don't deal with God directly, but rather they attempt to prove a various feature of your [i]concepts[/i] of God. So far, you've shown that the two concepts are like night and day. Either or neither of them may apply to God [i]in actuality[/i] but it's impossible that they both do.
Look at the 'chair' argument I gave. Was that argument [i]really[/i] about chairs?
True enough. If the only quality you gave God was 'imperfection', then I would say your argument is irrelevent to someone who gave God the quality 'perfection' in their own argument. It's not a statement about which argument is superior, but the fact is, neither can refute or support the other.
How should a theist respond to an argument that takes as assumption, "God is made-up?" They don't agree with that assumption- in other words, the argument doesn't apply to what they mean when they say 'God'- so they can ignore it; you must be talking about something else when you say 'God'.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you go into it a little more? The attribute you gave God was made-up ness, which you go on to say entails non-existence. The attribute he gave God was perfection, which he goes on to say entails existence.
As I said, they both fail to prove anything useful.
Er, where did all this come from? I didn’t realize I was making anyone mad. You’re right about it being a technicality though. I’m sorry this conversation didn’t go the in the direction you’d hoped.
Maybe that’s where we are butting heads. I don’t see existence or non-existence as valid qualities for a thing to have.
As to your atheistic ontological argument, I don't see why it doesn't mirror the God-argument above it. Shouldn't you have a statement in there to the effect: "Atheists are imperfect, therefore God might be perfect," and conclude with "Therefore God may or may not exist"? Also if I take you correctly, your third statement is saying that the quality 'non-existing' does not in fact exist itself. If that's true, it doesn't mean that things which have the quality don't exist- rather it means that it's invalid to apply the quality to anything in the first place.
*1-Dude, they are about the figure God and his existence, they are one in the same.
*2-No, the last statement in the each deals directly with God, my friend.
*3-Yeah, exactly, one does, that is the point of an argument; both sides state their opinion on the matter, whether it is pro or con, and they go on from there.
*4-You seem like you want me to say the exact same thing as the poster, do you? Because I have comprimised [sp?] with you down so both of our claims are worded in the exact same way…
*5-Do you support the fact that no argument can be argued? That’s what it seems to me. If somebody says capital punishment is bad, and another states that it is good, they exclude eachother making them both invalid. But if they both say the same thing, then it makes the argument disappear.
*6-You keep stating that my non-existence´ excludes his existence,´ but how can this be if they both deal with the existence of God?
*7-Then why are you only critiquing mine?
*8-This argument hasn’t gone anywhere, in fact, since you got here…
*9-If they aren’t valid qualities, then how are you here? You exist don’t you?
*10-If it mirrored it, wouldn’t it say the exact same thing?
*11-Why would I bring my own side down, when I am defending it?
Again, refer to the chair argument. The only thing your argument and rene's have in common is that they use the same three-letter word. All someone need do to refute your 'God is made up' argument is say "Oh, you misunderstand, I'm not talking about a made-up God, I'm talking about the [i]real[/i] one", and even if atheism is true, your argument is irrelevent. To make everything even, if someone presents you a proof of God's existence, you are free to say "Nono, I wasn't talking about the
real God, I was talking about the made-up one".
God who? Aren’t you arguing from a position that he doesn’t exist? How then, can anything refer to him? Isn’t it plain, that especially from an atheistic approach, all you can refer to is the concept of God, and whether or not it’s rational, and it’s it even plainer that there are many many different concepts of God?
Not quite. Rene's argument was very poorly worded, in that it only defined God by one quality- 'perfection'. Further, it only defined perfection by one quality- existence. This would be complete nonsense, save for the fact that most people understand that God (whether or not He exists) is alleged to be perfect, so we can throw a bone and allow his argument to pertain to something. Strictly, all his argument says is "There is a thing that exists." Your argument is of the same form, but takes it one step worse- it pertains to a thing that has the quality of 'being made up'. 'made up' things don't exist, so all your argument can refer to is an abstract concept. That concept is clearly different than rene's, despite both using the 'G' word, so your argument has nothing to do with his, despite a coincidence of word usage and form.
If his argument was worth refuting, you'd have to do so by taking his initial assumption of 'perfection', or some other trait that you think he would agree that God posseses, and show how it leads to God being 'made-up' by definition.
I like this example, I think I can make myself more clear with it. Suppose I said capital punishment was bad, and you said it was good. You propose an argument by examples that shows how it's more economical, more just, and perhaps more ethical than keeping a person jailed for decades. I rebutt by saying captial punishment is wrong, because torturing a person for weeks before killing them, murdering the criminals family and friends in addition to the wrong-doer themselves, and selling tickets to the general public to administer beatings to the criminal is clearly unethical and barbaric. You respond, obviously, by saying "I would agree with you, if that were the case, but capital punishment is nothing like that at all- I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's certainly not the process I'm defending!"
That's what I see going on here. You can make arguments all day long about God, where God is defined as 'made-up' from the get go, and I see no reason to refute those arguments, because the God I'm talking about isn't 'made-up', or so I believe. You must be talking about something else.
Mainly because this all started with you huffing about me not replying to you. I originally came to this thread to comment on something said by someone else completely, didn't I?
I happen to be enjoying myself. If you aren't, why in blazes are you wasting your time replying?
The way it was explained to me was thus: Picture a horse. It has certain qualities, like being brown, having four legs, two ears, being able to run fast, being somewhat skittish, and etc.
Now let's suppose a new kind of thing- call it a Superhorse. It has all the qualities of the horse above, and on top of that, it [i]exists[/i] as well.
Well, it's plain that every 'horse' we've ever seen was, in fact, actually a Superhorse. So where's all the normal horses? Well, nowhere- they don't exist. They don't [i]really[/i] have two ears, four legs, brown fur and etc. They don't have anything- there's no such things as horses.
But then in turn, these Superhorses aren't any different than what we originally thought were were talking about when we said 'horse'.
See how tacking 'existence' on a thing doesn't add to or change the definition in any way at all? Every horse is a Superhorse, and every Superhorse is a horse.
Well, in the interest of defending your side, I guess you wouldn’t want to. In the interest of having a correct argument, though, I think adding those statements is appropriate.
*1-Yes, but we are talking about the conception of God, and I can define something that isn’t existing as not existing, really, can’t I?
The Lochness Monster is defined to be a dinosaur-like creature that lives today.
Dinosaur-like creatures live and exist today.
Thus, the Lochness Monster does exist.
The Lochness Monster is defined as a non-existing creature.
A quality of non-existence is, in itself, non-existence.
Thus, the Lochness Monster does not exist.
*2-One doesn’t have to exist for me to refer to him, does he. `Oh God, please help me.´ Holy shizzle! I just said his name, I guess he exists now. And, aren’t all arguments based on our conceptions and opinions? His said that God is defined as perfect, that is his opinion, not mine, thus he doesn’t have a valid argument. I think this is irrational of you to think, as that is all arguments are, comparing peoples’ opinions to try and find the truth. Now stop playing this game of semantics with me, please.
*3-Yes, but your opinions exclude mine, thus that isn’t a valid argument.
*4-I never said I wasn’t enjoying it, I was just saying that this argument hasn’t gone anywhere since you started being a smart ass, lol.
*5-Yes, but if all Superhorses´ are horses in every way, with no extra things, and all Superhorses´ exist, then all horses exist as well.
*6-Do you have to have a smart ass response to everything? lol Just drop it my friend.
Feel free to respond to these, but this off-topic discussion is over.
The proposed arguments are:
Now, debate these, and only these in future posts, please.
This is a fallacy of presumption, as premise one is unfounded. You must prove that God is perfect in order to make the claim that God is perfect.
A similar syllogism would be:
By definiton, a pegasus flies.
In order to fly, a pegasus must exist.
Therefore, a pegasus exists.
Now we’ve come an epistemological impasse. How do we prove that a pegasus flies? Ideally we would observe a pegasus flying. Unfortunately, we cannot do this (for obvious reasons). The pegasus syllogism (exactly like your syllogism Rene), begs the question in a sense. A pegasus exists, because it flies. How do we know it flies? Because it exists.
Rene’s argument is very badly written, but a version of it can work. Instead of trying to define God by certain traits (including existence) and then using that to prove He exists, why not instead speak purely of the traits in and of themselves? That is,
1)Omnipotence is possible.
2)The property of omnipotence would include existing with certainty.
3)If it’s possible that something exists with certainty, then it does exist with certainty.
Something is omnipotent.
This argument doesn’t prove God exists- what it shows is that if omnipotence is at least possible, then something omnipotent exists. That puts the burden on the skeptic to prove impossibility, because the theist in this case only requires possibility.
Your argument, post-mortem, is fine for showing the non-existence of made up gods. Perhaps you could use it to disprove Thor, or Ba’al- provided your audience already thought Thor and Ba’al were made up. It’s useless, though, in addressing the existence of a Being that is thought by your audience to exist. I’d tell you why, but it involves rehashing all that old stuff you don’t want to talk about.
Pascal, this is false. The concept of a ‘perfect’ island is senseless, as it could always be a little bit bigger, have a few more coconuts and singing birds, etc. The qualities that make an island great are quantitative, so picturing a ‘perfect’ island would be like picturing a highest possible number. The qualities attributed to God tend to have an inherent maximum, as in, knowing everything, be able to do anything, so that’s a valid concept.
This doesn’t work. “Existing with certainty” is far too vague. At face value I take it to mean, “existing in actuality”–which means (3) is false; to say something is possible IS to say that it is possibly actual. It does not mean, “possibly necessary,” which, in modal logic, is the only way some possible state of things can be known to obtain. Now, you might mean by “existing with certainty” that this omnipotent being is KNOWN to exist–either that it knows itself to exist or that WE somehow are certain of its existence. But again, how is either kind of certainty tantamount to necessary existence? Perhaps you are actually substituting “existing with certainty” for “existing necessarily,” but that makes (2) false; necessary existence does not follow from the concept of omnipotence.
Also, I don’t see how you can say omnipotence is possible in the first place; it certainly is impossible for any being I’ve ever encountered. To say something is possible is to say that it could occur given what we know of the world. And given what we know of the world, omnipotence is impossible for any being.
*2-No, because God is to be said to have omnipotence, yet he doesn’t exist with certainty.
*3-Hmmm, not quite, seeing how the first two are false, you have proved nothing, and just because the quality of omnipotence can be defined doesn’t mean that it has to exist, thus, something with omnipotence doesn’t exist in certainty.
*4-This whole argument is about God existing, you are kind of off-topic, aren’t you?
*5-How can you have the balls to say that Baal and Thor are made up, and that yours isn’t? Your friend, rene, said that God is defined as perfect, thus saying that he exists, that is just as logical as me saying that he is made up, making him non-existent.
*6-No, sir, you are wrong here. The concept of a perfect island is possible, for something to be perfect, it must be the best in every way, shape, and form. This, may be impossible, but Pascal stated that you may conceive of this, making the statement true.
And back on topic, if you define God as perfect, rene, you must follow all qualities of perfection. For one to be perfect it must have the perfect quality in all qualities; God must be perfectly knowledgable, perfectly powerful, perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable, et cetera…And, he doesn’t follow the laws of logic, thus he isn’t perfectly perfect, making the whole statement a flawed statement and making it invalid in this argument.
God is defined to be perfect.
Qualities of perfection include being logical.
God is not logical.
If he doesn’t follow one quality of perfectness he is imperfect.
Imperfect things don’t have to exist.
Illogical things don’t exist.
God does not exist.
Know? I don't know, and that's the point. We are uncertain whether or not omnipotence is possible. However, who has the burden of proof, the person claiming that something is merely possible, or the person claiming that the same thing is logically and rigorously [i]impossible[/i]? For nothing short of impossbility will defeat the argument as it stands. If it's granted that omnipotence as defined is even remotely [i]possible[/i], then the argument succeeds because that's all it needs. All anyone can do to prove the possibility of a thing is wait to see if anyone has a good argument to show it's impossibility, right?
How do you know God doesn't exist with certainty? More importantly, how do you know that it's [i]impossible[/i] for God to exist with certainty? Clearly a Being who's existence was contingent on a state of affairs is less powerful than a Being who exists [i]no matter what[/i], so I think the argument "True omnipotence would include certain existence" is fair.
If it can be defined as I did, and that definition is possible, then that’s exactly what it means, actually. ‘If a thing possibly exists nessicarily, then it exists nessicarily’ is a derived rule of modal logic. Not without it’s detractors, but I’m willing to bite the bullet and say that the argument is true if and only if that rule is true. As I said, this all hinges on the possibilty of omnipotence as defined. If you say it’s impossible, fine, but I want to see a proof of that.
Depends on your concept of God, I suppose. I consider proof that omnipotence exists (that is, proof that something is omnipotent) to be very relevent in a discussion about the existence of God. That’s all the tradiational ontological proof does anyway- prove that a ‘greatest possible Being’ exists. Is the ontological argument off topic?
Yes yes, how dare I. Pluralism and atheism has always seemed a very awkward combonation to me, yet you pull it off so well. Kudos.
You have to do a little more to 'concieve' of something than simply say the words. Again, concieve of any island you wish, and I'll concieve of one slightly larger, with a slightly larger number of coconuts, and my conception will be the more-perfectest. That is, until someone does the same thing to me and so on. Do you contend that a person can concieve of a highest possible number?
I would agree with your argument, if this were true. But in what sense does God not follow the laws of logic?
Also, your argument defeats itself- If illogical things can't exist, then your third statement (God is not logical) must be false. I realize you mean to say "If God is illogical, then He cannot exist", but if you want to do that, you can't use "God is not logical" as a premise or the argument is circular.
It is possible that something is omnipotent, but just because it’s possible does not mean that it exists! Let’s look at premise 3, as it is the step taken that goes the furthest into illogical land. To be be less ambiguous, I’ll use a proper noun in the place of “something” to illustrate exactly how illogical such a statement is:
If it is possible that Unicorns exist with certainty (which it is possible), then Unicorns do exist with certainty.
Is it clear that simply because something is capable of existing certainly, that it does not make it certain? Conversely, if something can exist without certainty (i.e., cannot be known), then this does not mean that it doesn’t exist per se.
I think that by “existing with certainty” Uccisore means “existing necessarily.” In modal logic something that is possibly necessary IS necessary. What this argument fails to explain, however, is how omnipotence involves necessary existence.
And I still don’t see how omnipotence is possible. I may not be able to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being, but that does not mean that one could actually exist. We can only talk meaningfully in terms of possibilities and necessities when we can reflect on the causality of a thing. Unless you can show how an entity might be able to exist, given what we know about the world, you can’t say it is possible. It remains a meaningless fiction.
The idea is that a Being that exists in 9 possible worlds is less powerful than a Being that exists in 10 possible worlds, and hence, a Being that exists in [i]all[/i] possible worlds would be truly omnipotent- especially since the alternative is being a [i]contingent[/i] Being, and God's existence being dependant on a certain state of affairs is certainly lesser power than God existing no matter what. Like you said, if it's possible for God to exist necessarily, then He does.
That's just the thing, though. In the absense of an argument for the impossibility of a thing, it's possibility is the only option- that's what possibility [i]is[/i]- the lack of a logical inconsistancy.
Again, in the absense of logical inconsistancy within a concept, that concept [i]is[/i] possible- that's what 'possible' is. And possibility is all the argument requires. Case in point, look at your own request- to 'show' how such a Being as God could exist (presumably to your satisfaction). How could someone do a thing like that? Can you describe to me how a person might 'show how' a [i]necessary[/i] Being could exist- considering their existence is not based on any contingent state of affairs? I think the request is absurd, and the reason it's absurd is that possibility of a thing is the default assumption in absense of argument to the contrary.
For a unicorn to be a necessary being, it’s existence couldn’t rely on any contingent thing- that is, it exists without grass to feed it, without parents to give birth to it, without air to breathe, without the existence of physical matter, etc. IT would be a very strange unicorn indeed- utterly unlike a traditional usage of the word. You may find yourself calling God a unicorn, in fact.
I do not know for certain, but it’s possible that unicorns are neceesary for the sun to rise. So, if unicorns are possibly necessary for the sun to rise, then that makes them exist?
Everything is possibly necessary. It’s possibly necessary that for me to be alive, I need a soul- but that doesn’t mean that I have one. I’ve only taken an introductory logic course, but I find it hard to believe that just because something is possibly necessary means that it is.
*1-For something to exist with certainty, it must have a 100% chance of being true. It must also be a commonly known fact.
[b]2+2=4[/b]´ -This is a certainty. All albinos wil be white skinned with pink, gray, or white eyes.´
-This is a certainty. [b]Christians and other religions believe that there is a God, and they give him a definition, thus, he exists.[/b]´ -This is not a certainty, it is only a possibility. I wil get hit by a car today.´
-Again, this is not a certainty, this is a possibility.
Also, if there is any doubt whatsoever that God doesn’t exist, it is impossible for him to exist with certainty, as 100% of the world doesn’t believe this and it can’t be a proven fact. And yes, true omnipotence would include existence, but if you can’t prove that God is truly omnipotent, you can’t say that he exists with certainty. That would be like saying, A unicorn is defined omnipotent, thus, it exists.´ This statement, doesn't prove anything, it is just merely a claim. And yes, the statement: True omnipotence would include certain existence,´ is fair, but you didn’t use that statement in your argument, so why are you bringing it up?
*2-Just because the definition is possible doesn’t mean that it is certain.
It is possible for me to win the lottery, thus I will win the lottery.
Now, wouldn’t that be great if it were true?
The Lochness Monster is lizard-like.
Lizard-likeliness is possible.
The Lochness Monster exists.
*3-Yes, but this arument is directly about the existence of God, you didn’t use God in your example once, and didn’t use a sidenote saying that he was omnipotent, either, thus, it is off-topic.
*4-Okay, through this statement, I can take it one of three ways. The first being: If there is always something more perfect than something else, God can’t be perfect because I can conceive of better, thus making him imperfect and he doesn’t have to exist. The second being: Conception isn’t a reality. And the third, and final, being: You are helping his argument.
If I can conceive a perfect island, and you can always conceive of a better one, making the previous not perfect, then I can do the same to your god.
1.) Uccisore- I conceive of a perfect god, God.
2.) Post_Mort- I conceive of a god that is just a little better than yours.
3.) Uccisore’s first claim would then be changed to: …an imperfect…
4.) Something can be imperfect and not exist.
5.) God doesn’t have to exist with certainty.
If he conceives of the perfect island, technically, you can’t conceive of a better, as his is the, one and only, perfect island. You can conceive of the highest number, but you can’t give it a name. You can imagine that this number is X and that it is the highest, but you can’t claim which it is, because then, one could be one number higher.
You claim that, no matter what, he can’t conceive of a perfect island. But in his mind, it is the perfect island. And, he can think anything he wants, but if it truly existed, you could make it a little better, thus proving Pascal’s argument true.
*5-Can you, logically, prove God, if not, he is not logical?
*6-No, I meant what I said. `God is not logical.´ I can refer to him in any way I want, but that doesn’t mean he exists.
Not at all. Existence is not an ability. A thing either exists or it doesn’t; you need to establish that it exists, and then we can talk about predicates like omnipotence.
But even supposing that existence were a “power” of some sort, that a being could in some way CREATE itself, an omnipotent being would have the option of NOT creating itself and therefore would not exist in all possible worlds.
If we’re just playing around with hypotheticals and logical theory, yes. But not when dealing with the real world. If you want to say that this thing ACTUALLY exists, you must take other considerations into account–most notably, epistemological considerations. In order for your claim, x is possible to have any meaning in the real world, you have to be able to say HOW it is possible given what we know. That’s what scientists mean by “possible”, and I don’t see how you should be held to any other standard.
Which we are, so I take it we agree. If you want to come out and say, “Yes the argument works, but argument alone isn’t good enough for me,” then I’ll conceed that point and we can both be satisfied.
Again, with no argument for impossibility to counter, [i]how[/i] can one ever show that something is [i]possible[/i] beyond giving a concept free of inconsistencies? Give me an example of how your request could ever be fulfilled.
I state a concept. The concept has no obvious logical inconsistancies, and you you provide no argument to establish any. [i]That alone makes it possible, case closed[/i]. AS you've already admitted above.
You're dangerously close to saying "Philosophy and logic must be flawed because they aren't giving the results I want," you know. I mean, what did you think a successful argument for the existence of God would be? In the end, it's just some words on a piece of paper or on a computer screen- and now that you may have seen them, you're raising the bar. "Yes yes, that's all well and good, but can you prove it with [i]science[/i]?" No. I can't. If I could, though, what hoop would I have to jump through next?
Power is not just ability, it is freedom to excersise that ability, so I still maintain that greater power is to be had by existing nessecarily. But I digress- Even if you won't accept this point, surely a Being that exists [i]no matter what[/i] is in some real sense greater than one that exists "Only if..." even if you don't measure classify this greatness as a part of omnipotence like I do. Perhaps you'd rather call it perfection, like rene.
The first part of this is obviously true, the second obviously false. I have no more to say on that matter.
I see my usage of ‘certainty’ is causing confusion. Mea culpa. Don’t think of certainty as “Everyone knows for a fact it’s true”. Think of it as “There is no way it could be false (regardless of if people know it or not).”
First of all, I'm not defining anything into existence, I'm speaking of [i]properties[/i]. If it is possible for the property of omnipotence (or greatness, for Logos)as I have explained it to obtain, then it does obtain according to modal logic. If you want to call the situation in which omnipotence obtains a unicorn, feel free.
Yes, it does, if the definition includes necessity. Break it down into possible worlds. For a statement to be possible, this means there is at least one possible world in which it is true. The concept in question is, "there is something omnipotent". If this is possible (which both you and Logos seem to agree is the case), then these is a possible world in which it is true- that is, there is a possible world that contains an omnipotent thing. But the definition of omnipotence we are working with includes the qualifer that "This thing exists in all possible worlds." So, if there is a thing X and a world W, and
1)’ X exists in all possible worlds is true in W’
is true, then X exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world.
Then feel free to disregard it and move on to something else if you think so. Complain to a moderator or something.
No, because the qualities that make God great are quantitative, they are qualitative. For example, God is omniscient. He doesn't know 10 things, or a 1000000000000000000 things, he knows everything that can ever be known. What are you going to do, concieve of a God that knows everything that can ever be known, plus some other stuff? Omnipotence can be explained in much the same way. Omnibenevolence is trickier but still defensible.
Return to the island example. What's a perfect Island? Can't an island always be a little bigger, have a few more dancing women or sandy beaches or whatever?
You’ll have to tell the mathematicians that. In what situation is X+1=Y an invalid formula?
As far as I know, most philosophers agree that 'the highest possible number' is incoherent and thus inconcievable. I'll admit, the idea that a highest possible number is inconcievable is both key to my argument, and beyond the limits of my time and ability to prove to you. I'll have to bite a bullet and conceed that my argument is valid if and only if the concept 'highest possible number' is incoherent. If that's suitable for you, we can come to an agreement and discuss something else.
There may be a possible reality where there is an omnipotent being. Conversely, there may be a possible reality that does not contain an omnipotent being. Now we’re at an impasse. I can make the following argument: A world possibly exists that does not contain an omnipotent being. If there is a possible world that exists that does not contain an omnipotent being, then an omnipotent being cannot exist. Both our arguments are possible, but they contradict each other. One of them is true. We don’t know which however.
Scientists do it all the time: “given conditions p, and natural law n, q is possible”. That’s the basic form for establishing possibility. Without it, all you have is fiction.
No argument for the existence of God can be successful because we have no way of knowing what things are like outside of the universe we experience. Do logical laws hold in the same way as they do here? CAN anything actually be said to exist outside this universe in the same way things do here? We don’t know. Laws of logic are not flawed, but they can only be used to explain the world in which they are known to apply.
Freedom to exercise an ability is an ability in itself, so that doesn’t change anything. I’m not sure where this connection between freedom and necessity comes from. How is a necessary being more free than a non-necessary being?
Well “greater” is just a value judgement. I mean Jesus proved that, didn’t he? “The greatest among you will be the servant…” There’s nothing objective to the predicate “great.”
Well here’s the problem. You can’t just attribute necessary existence to anything; you have to establish a necessary truth from other necessary truths. Now, there’s always been a lot of debate among philosophers about whether anything actually exists necessarily. But lets, for the sake of argument, take the idea that something does exist to mean that something exists necessarily; what can you derive from this idea? Well, you sure as hell don’t get a morally perfect, omnipotent personal being. If perfection means simply “necessary existence,” and if God means perfection, then fine: God exists. But among those who make these kinds of arguments, much more is attributed to God along the way that does not follow from the idea of necessary existence. Descartes made this mistake, Leibniz made it, and now you’re making it.
So, if unicorns are possibly necessary for the sun to rise, then that makes them exist?