A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

Regardless, the concept of a maximally great being is internally incoherent for many reasons (I will delve into at least two of these reasons in this debate). In this round specifically however, I will be defending one reason for this conclusion at hand. Argument From IncoherenceP1: It is greater to be perfect than imperfectP2: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfectP3: It is greater to be unlimited than limited. P4: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is unlimited. P5: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfect and unlimited. P6: If it is possible for a perfect being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in no possible world. P7: If it is possible for an unlimited being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in some possible world. P8: There cannot be both no possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness, and some possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness. P9: A maximally great being exists in no possible world. P10: A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world. Support For Premise 1I believe this premise to be self-evident, and this concept is also strongly accepted by theists who adhere to the Modal Ontological Argument. If I am incorrect about my assumptions, and the first premise of my argument needs continued argumentation, then I am sure that my opponent will let me know that this is the case. Support For Premise 2If it is greater to be perfect than imperfect, then a maximally great being must be perfect. William Lane Craig (a major proponent of the modal ontological argument) agrees with the obvious notion that a maximally great being would be a perfect being. "To say that I tacitly endorse Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is an understatement. .. I am an enthusiastic proponent. As I explain in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I see the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being as one of the guides for systematic theology’s formulation of the doctrine of God" - William Lane Craig [1]Support For Premise 3Similar to my support for premise 1, I believe this premise to be self-evident, and this concept is also strongly accepted by theists who adhere to the Modal Ontological Argument. If I am incorrect about my assumptions, and the third premise of my argument needs continued argumentation, then I am sure that my opponent will let me know that this is the case. Support For Premise 4If it is greater to be unlimited than limited, then a maximally great being must be unlimited. Norman Malcome (a major proponent of the modal ontological argument) agrees with the obvious notion that a maximally great being would be an unlimited being. "God is usually conceived of as an unlimited being. He is conceived of as a being who could not be limited, that is, as an absolutely unlimited being. …” - Norman Malcome [2] Support For Premise 5 This logically follows from P1 to P4. Support For Premise 6The very essence of perfection is that which cannot be improved upon. The very idea of "improving" "perfection" is logically incoherent:Perfect (per·fect) "excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:" [3] Thus, a "perfect" being "improves" upon it's greatness in no possible world. Support For Premise 7A being who is unlimited is not limited in greatness (if the being was limited in greatness, we wouldn't be talking about an unlimited being). Thus, an unlimited being has no limit to his greatness, and it would therefore be possible for this being to improve upon it's greatness. Thus, an unlimited being improves upon it's greatness some possible world. Support for Premise 8Similar to my support for premise 1 and premise 3, I believe this premise to be self-evident. If I am incorrect about my assumption, and the first premise of my argument needs continued argumentation, then I am sure that my opponent will let me know that this is the case. Support For Premise 9 This logically follows from P1 to P8 Support For Premise 10 This logically follows from P1-to P9 Conclusion"In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. " William Lane Craig [4] I have proven in this debate that concept of a maximally great being is internally incoherent. A being cannot both improve upon it's greatness in no possible world and in some possible world, so a maximally great being exists in no possible world. If God is defined a "maximally great being" then theism is negated. Sources [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu...[3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...