It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

I appreciate my opponent’s response, but I’m afraid he has misunderstood several aspects of my argument. First, he challenges the validity of my argument, yet all of the objections he presents do not explain why he considers the argument to be logically invalid. Validity has nothing to do with whether the premises are true. All validity evaluates is whether the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, if we assumed the premises are true, would the conclusion also be true? Although the following argument is not sound, it is logically valid: P1. All cups are green.P2. Socrates is a cup.C. Therefore, Socrates are green. So, although we know that both P1 and P2 are false, the conclusion does follow from the premises, so the argument can be said to be valid. I encourage my opponent to look at my argument once again, and I hope he will find that the conclusion of the argument follows from the premises. Next, my opponent simplified my argument, and in doing so changed some important wording. My original argument discusses the amount of stuff in the galaxy. My opponent has changed this to the amount of stuff in the Universe. The other change is the change from “must be” to “is” in the first and second premises. If we are using the word “is,” then the second premise is not true, but if we use “must be” then the second premise holds up. Con Objection #1 Con’s first objection centers around the idea that it is possible that the Universe is infinite, so there is not a finite amount of stuff in the Universe. This is based on a couple of misunderstandings. The first misunderstanding is that my example discusses a galaxy, not the entire Universe. We know there is not a finite number of stars in the galaxy through scientific means, though, more importantly, I will explain in a bit why we know this to true philosophically as well. Scientists have estimated the number of stars in the galaxy to be around 100 billion. Although this number is not exact, just an estimate, it does allow us to conclude that there is a finite number of stars in the galaxy. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... Additionally, we can simplify the argument even farther to something like the number of socks in my house or really whatever you want. There is no question that there is a finite number of socks in my house any given time. The second misunderstanding deals with what it means for the Universe to be infinite. Although we can say that the Universe, at any given time, the Universe must be of a finite size. The reasoning behind this is the same as the reasoning behind my claim that there must exist a finite number of stars. So, we know the amount of stuff in the Universe is finite, but despite my opponent's rewriting of it, my argument posits that the amount of stuff in the Universe must be finite in every possible world. Here's how we can arrive at that conclusion: Logical and mathematical truths are necessary truths, in other words, things that are true in every possible world, including the actual world. 2+1=3 is true in every possible world. We know this because mathematical propositions are true by definition. The number two is defined, in part, by the fact that when added to itself, the number four is achieved. In know possible world can there exist a square triangle. We know this to be true because of the logical contradiction this would entail: Triangles are, by definition, not squares. The existence of an actual infinity (an infinite number of stars, socks, space in the Universe,etc.) would contradict necessary logical and mathematical truths, meaning that such an infinity cannot exist, given that logical and mathematical truths are necessary truths. One way to demonstrate the impossibility of infinities is using the law of identity, which states rather simply that everything is the same as what it is and is different from what it is not. This law is fundamental to both logic and math. So, let’s apply this law using the number one. We can say that the number one can be identified in part by the fact that any one added to any number, is equal to one greater than that number. So: 2+1=3. But, infinity defies this, as ∞+1=∞. One added to infinity should be one greater than infinity, but it results in just infinity, thus defying one’s properties of identity, as well as the identities of all other numbers. For, the equation expresses that: 0=1=2=3=..., since ∞+1=∞+2+∞+3=∞. Yet, we know that one is not equal to two because the law of identity tells us that different things are different. So, we can then rule out the existence of actual infinities because their existence would contradict necessary truths. The impossibility of an infinity can also be seen through the example of Hilbert’s Infinite Hotel, which demonstrates the paradoxical nature of actual infinities. For anyone interested, a very short video explaning the paradox can be seen above. http://www.youtube.com... What we can conclude from all of this is that actual infinities can exist in no possible world, therefore, the at any given time, there is indeed a finite amount of stuff in the Universe, and more importantly, there must always exist a finite amount of stuff in the Universe as the opposite of this would result in a contradiction, an impossibility. Con Objection #2 Con’s second objection results from his changing “must be” to “is” in his simplification of my argument. As I have already demonstrated, not only do we know that there is a finite amount of stuff in the Universe, but that there must be a finite amount of stuff in the Universe. So, given that a maximally great being could not do something that is logically impossible, and having an infinite amount of stuff in the Universe would be a logical impossibility, a maximally great being could only create a finite amount of stuff. In syllogism form: P1. A MGB could not do something that is logically impossible.P2. An infinite amount of stuff cannot exist.C.Therefore, a MGB could not cause an infinite amount of stuff to exist. The first premise was already agreed to by my opponent, and I justified the second premise in response to my opponent’s first objection. Since this objection was based on a fallacious representation of the argument, needless to say, it does not stand. Con Objection #3 Con’s objection here is that the argument fails since we agreed to the definition of a maximally great being including omnipotence, which he defines as infinite power. I would remind my opponent that we also agreed that this omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible, so it is inaccurate to say that we defined a maximally great being as having infinite power. As I have already demonstrated, if it were possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being could not create an infinite amount of stars, even if it wanted to, because creating an infinite amount of stars is logically impossible. Con Objection #4 Once again, we find a misunderstanding has led to an objection. My opponent argues that the argument is self-contradicting, and therefore fails. What is actually self-contradicting is not the argument, but rather the concept of a maximally great being. In fact, this contradiction within the idea of a maximally great being that invalidates its possibility. The key to understanding this is that the argument begins by supposing what could happen if a maximally great being could exist. The argument then demonstrates why such a proposition leads to contradiction and therefore concludes that a maximally great being cannot exist. Conclusion My opponent’s objections to my argument are based mostly on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my argument. I have clearly demonstrated why each of his objections do not stand. In the end, it all boils down to this: Because we can always conceive of a greater being, no conceivable being is the greatest.