A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

Rebutting My Opponent"Of course, there is a vast difference between "possible" and "imaginable.""I would disagree to a certain extent. A sphere is the most round object anyone can imagine but it is also the most round object possible. Also, a perfectly round square is unimaginable and it is also impossible. Thus, to act like what can be imagined and what is "possible" is mutually exclusive, seems to be an error on the behalf of my opponent. If something is imaginable (assuming there are no internal contradictions involved) then it is "possible" in some context. "A maximally great being is only as great as is possible (because of the definition of maximally). Therefore, a maximally great being is only as unlimited as possible, but not necessarily absolutely unlimited. Because the MGB is not absolutely unlimited, it can still have limits."This is of course, absurd. A being with limits, is by definition, limited. The idea of a being who is as unlimited as possible but still has limits is extremely incoherent because if a being has limits, we are talking about a limited being and not an unlimited being because unlimited is defined as "without limits". Even a being with one limit (assuming no contradictions), is by definition a limited being. Since anything less than unlimited, is limited (as I already explained earlier), then we can dismiss my opponent's argument here."It is easy enough to see that absolute unlimitedness is not logical. It would require one to have an unlimited net positives and, at the same time, have unlimited net negatives. So again, since absolute unlimitedness is not possible, it does not fit within "maximally great." Obviously by unlimited, this means unlimited in regards to all qualities which don't contradict eacht other. As I already stated, if it can be imagined and it has no contradictions, then it is "possible" in some context. As far as "possibility" is concerned in general, there seems to be some confusion."Thanks to the qualifier "maximal" that is in MGB, we can replace "perfect" with "most perfect possible" and replace "unlimited" with "most unlimited possible." Since both options fall under the set of possible, then the MGB itself is possible."I think there is some equivocation going on with the word "possible". Lets say I have two dice in my hand and you don't know how many sides each one has. There is no logical contradiction based on this information that if I rolled these two dice, I could roll an 18, thus, rolling an 18 is "possible". However, what if there were just regular 6 sided dice in reality? This means that the highest number that can be rolled is 12 in reality, thus rolling an 18 would be impossible. Basically, something could be "possible" simply based on lack of knowledge of it's negation. In reality, the highest possible roll using these two dice is a 12, however, due to lack of knowledge it was magically "possible" that I could roll an 18. So my opponent needs to enforce which type of "possible" she is referring to in her rebuttals."Since the definitions of the words dictate "possible" I will let this end and move into our final round."Again, my opponent needs to explain what she means by "possible". Something could be "possible" due to lack of knowledge of it's negation, when it reality it's impossible (like rolling an 18 with two dice is "possible" if you don't know how many sides the dice has). Or, something could be actually possible based on knowledge of all possible outcomes in reality (we know the exact range of the dice, 1 - 12, thus rolling a 12 is actually possible). Continuing My Case We can still assume my opponent's definitions, however here is a common definition of maximally:"max·i·mally An element in an ordered set that is followed by no other[1] If it's possible for a maximally great being to exist, he is neccessarily the element of an ordered set of greatness that can be follwed by no other in greatness. Thus, there exists greatness that cannot be followed by more greatness if a maximally great being exists (thus, limit to greatness would exist). However, a being who exists in 2 possible worlds is greater than a being who exists in only 1, and a being who exists in 3 possible worlds is greater than a being who exists only in 2 ect... There can always be more greatness without a limit when dealing with occupying and unlimited amount of possible worlds. This means that for a being to occupy an unlimited (potentially infinite) amount of possible worlds, there must necessarily be no limit to greatness, and greatness necessarily always has to have the ability to be followed by more greatness. Hence the contradiction.ConclusionThe debate boils down to:"Can a being be maximally great, if he is not great enough to occupy every possible world?"If the answer is "yes" then the debate seems to be leaning in my opponent's favor. If the the answer is "no" then this debate seems to be leaning in my favor. Source[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...