Let us suppose. A religious authority figure makes an argument for the existence of god. The argument goes something like this.

  1. It is possible. A maximally great being exists.
  2. Let us suppose. It is possible. A maximally great being exists. In that event, a maximally great being would exist in some possible world.
  3. Let us suppose. A maximally great being does exist in some possible world. In that event, the maximally great being would exist in every possible world.
  4. Let us suppose. The maximally great being does exist in every possible world. In that event, the maximally great being would exist in the actual world.
  5. Let us suppose. The maximally great being does exist in the actual world. In that event, a maximally great being would exist.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The argument begins with a premise. The premise is. It is possible. A maximally great being exists. The argument ends with a conclusion. The conclusion is. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The flaw in this reasoning is. I do not know. I know a finite amount of information about an infinite subject. I know next to nothing about almost everything. I am practically deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to my abilities to gather truths about the existence of one totality. Next to nothing is still something. Fractal self-similarity enables me. I know you. You do not know. For that reason, we do not know whether or not. The premise is true. We do not know whether or not. The premise is false. The premise was. It is possible. A maximally great being exists.

In valid arguments, conclusions can be logically inferred from premises. From the premise, we can logically infer. We do not know whether or not. The conclusion is true. We do not know whether or not. The conclusion is false. The conclusion was. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The existence of one totality makes possible an infinite number, diversity, and variety of myths. This argument for the existence of god does not prove. A maximally great being exists. This argument does not prove. His myths are truths.

This argument does prove. The religious authority figure was generous with his time and energy. The act of pondering the existence of one totality requires energy, space, and time. He was lucky. He had the energy, space, and time. He pondered the existence of one totality. He was inspired. He made an argument. The religious authority figure shared this argument for the existence of God with people. He had the ability. I am grateful.

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s