Wrong. This is where you equivocate (unless you're simply confused);
Well this is the first time that you even remotely defined what you meant by a
slightly maximally great being, despite being asked to.
my slightly less than maximally great being is maximally great in every respect except it lacks maximal knowledge- therefore, its presence is maximally great.
This can't be the case because if this being is omnipotent, he/she can do anything that is logically possible, and it is logically possible for such a being to be omniscient....so there is no good reason for you to give that will allow such a being to be omnipotent in all other areas except for knowledge.
But in any case, this is NOT the argument you give for the possible necessity of a MGB- you argue that it is not self-contradictory that a MGB be possibly necessary- and so by introducing it here to PREVENT the same conclusion from applying to the LGMB is ad hoc and illicit.
Ad hoc and illicit? Not at all, because unlike you, I can give reasons why the concept of a LGMB is irrational. First off, you said this being possesses all the omni's EXCEPT for omniscience, and I already explained why that wouldn't work. So if such a being cannot be omnipotent while also lacking the attribute of omniscience, then that would mean that such a being cannot be either omnipotent and or omniscient (you already stated that this being isn't omniscient).
So that only leaves omnipresence. If such a being is omnipresent but lacks omniscience and omnipotence, then the postulation of such a being is not sufficient enough to explain the existence of the universe with not only its existence, but with its complex natural laws...its constants and values. Certainly only a omnipotent and omniscient being can create a universe from nothing and have the knowledge to engineer the DNA code along with all of the constants and values the universe has. So if such a being is doesn't have the power to create and sustain the universe, then such a being cannot exist within the universe that he doesn't even have the power to create, which would mean there is at least one possible world that this being doesn't exist in....ours.
So the concept of a LGMB is clearly irrational not only because of the mere concept, but because of the observational evidence we have with the universe.
No. Take your argument, cross out MGB and put in LGMB, and that's the argument.
See above.
Thus, LGMB's exist necessarily by the same token the MGB's do; it is possible that they are necessary- that is, there is some possible world P such that their existence is necessary.
See above.
Then the same applies to MGB/God. You want your cake and to eat it too, but you can't have it both ways. Either we can say that BOTH a MGB and a LGMB are possibly necessary (in which case, by your argument, they are actual or actually necessary), seeing as their necessity is not self-contradictory (the definition of possibility), or we say that NEITHER are- but we can't pick one but not the other.
See above.
This is a nonsense question. Its pretty obvious you have no background in formal logic, and don't even understand the modal logic your argument relies upon. I suggest you read some introductory background material so you can understand whats going on here- short of that, there's only so much I can explain to you.
No it isn't a nonsense question. Either you just don't understand the question, or you understand it, you just can't offer a response to it. So let me break it down to you further.
It sounds as if you are saying that just because it is possible for something to be necessary true, that doesn't mean it is necessarily true (correct me if Im wrong), I am saying the exact opposite, if it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it IS necessarily true. So lets examine your position.
Your position:
Just because it is possible for something to be necessarily true, that doesn't make it necessarily true.
Now, if something is possible, that would mean that under the right circumstances, that possibility can be "actualized", it could happen. So, if it is possible for God's existence to be necessarily true, then WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE IT NECESSARILY TRUE? What are the right circumstances that would make God's existence necessarily true? If you are saying it is possible, but untrue, what can happen to make it possible, but true?? That is the question I am asking. I would really like for you to answer this question.
That's not what I said at all.
Didn't you say God is responsible for everything that happens?
Because you have no response available to you; you're caught between a rock and a hard place- either you allow that an infinite number of LGMB's exist necessarily (and that a MGB is not a MGB- a contradiction), or you deny the crucial inference and sweep the rug out from under your own feet.
As I said, you're screwed either way.
See answer above.
