Well, there are Maximally great beings at our Big Bang Club?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK8s3iqL99c

Im maximally great, just not maximally expressed.

Great as in great, or great as in great?

And how maximal is maximal?

It's reckoned that Dreadnoughtus was about 65 metres in length and weighed about 60 tonnes...So more maximal than that?

In other words, it is not possible to say that a maximally great idea doesnt exist, because to do so would require statement to contain both maximal greatness and more than maximal greatness, which is not logically possible.

Sure ok.

In other words, it is not possible to claim that maximally great being doesnt exist.

How did we get from “idea” to “being”?

How did we get from “idea” to “being”?

Maximally great idea is same as maximally great being. Both would have to be infinite and omnipresent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK8s3iqL99c

So we know a maximally hot being exists.

The maximally great being argument is 

an ontological argument for the existence of God, which argues that God is a being that is "maximally great". A maximally great being is defined as having maximal excellence in every possible world, meaning it possesses the greatest possible degree of omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, and necessary existence. The argument's core logic suggests that a being that is maximally great in thought must also exist in reality because actual existence is greater than non-existence. 

The Ontological argument has been refuted by smart people.

The Ontological argument has been refuted by smart people.

Not really. Maximal being is a sum of all things. It is maximally great sum.

The Ontological argument has been refuted by smart people.

Not really. Maximal being is a sum of all things. It is maximally great sum.

The Ontological argument is nothing but a semantic parlor game, you can't just define something into existence.

If you could, the Bible would have said, "In the beginning was the word"...oh wait, never mind.

Maximally great idea is same as maximally great being.

No, they’re not.

Google “idea”, then google “being”.

Note the differences in their definition.

"Idea and being" can be interpreted in two main ways: 

the relationship between a mental concept (idea) and existence itself (being), or as an acronym (IDEA) related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Philosophically, an idea is a thought or mental representation, while being refers to existence or reality. Alternatively, "IDEA" is the acronym for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which ensures free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. 

What’s your point?

Google “idea”, then google “being”.

Maximally great idea isnt same as regular idea. It is infinite and omnipresent.

I don't think the Ontological Argument is logical, but it is certainly not my intent to denigrate people who do think it is logical.

For those of you who think it is logical, "denigrate" means "put down"

Here is the conclusive refutation of the ontological argument:

A maximally great argument refuting the ontological argument is defined as an argument to which no greater argument can be conceived, this argument must exist because existence is a necessary attribute of greatness. Anyone who denies this refutation’s existence can conceive of this greatest argument, and thus, it must exist.

Therefore, the ontological argument for the existence of God has been conclusively refuted.

A strong refutation of the ontological argument is the 

modal ontological argument's reverse, which challenges the premise that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. By arguing that "it is possible that no maximally great being exists," it can be shown that if this is true, a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world. The ontological argument relies on the idea that existence is a perfection and that a maximally great being possesses all perfections, including necessary existence, but the reverse argument questions whether the very concept of a "maximally great being" is logically coherent and not simply a combination of undefined and impossible properties. 

One could say that an apple is a coconut, because raspberries are kumquats and bananaman is therefore omni-maximally-infinitely fruity.

Such would be an ontological argument.

Do you guys not know how sum works? What do you get when you sum everything? You get maximal greatness. Also, saying that maximally great idea doesnt exist is impossible, same for maximally great being.

Do you guys not know how sum works?

Yes, I do, and there is no such thing as a maximally great sum, you can always add one more to any so called maximally great quantity.

What do you get when you sum everything?

Aristotle and about a thousand philosophers since, demonstrate why a maximally great sum can only exist potentially, not actually. A potential infinity is an unending process, in terms of existence in the real world you can never arrive at the actual maximum. An actual infinity, which would be a completed, infinite quantity, cannot exist in reality, and even if it did, we could never know that to be the case.

You get maximal greatness. Also, saying that maximally great idea doesnt exist is impossible, same for maximally great being.

The ontological argument is circular reasoning, which is logically invalid, the premises of the ontological argument are demonstrably false, and the conclusion is not derived logically from the premises. The argument is semantic gamesmanship at best, and it confuses epistemology and ontology, which is not valid,

A finite mind cannot conceive of an actual infinite, which negates the first premise, "greatness" is a subjective term, and it is not established that existence is a quality of greatness, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, "existence" is not a predicate or property, it is a necessary precondition for having properties. 

You can't just define something into existence, if you could, you certainly don't need to use the invalid reasoning of the ontological argument, you could simply define God as existing. If you were to define a three-sided square as geometric shape that exists, that doesn't make it exist.

An actual infinity, which would be a completed, infinite quantity, cannot exist in reality

Unproved claim.

An "infinite quantity" refers to a value greater than any finite number, something that is boundless or endless in extent or size [1, 2].

The second part of the statement, "cannot exist in reality," aligns with the general scientific and philosophical consensus that true infinities do not exist in the physical world. 

1. Physical reality is believed to be finite: Current scientific models suggest that the observable universe, for example, is finite in size, mass, and age [2]. Physical quantities like energy, matter, and information are thought to exist in discrete, measurable amounts, not infinite ones [2].
2. Mathematical abstraction: Infinity is fundamentally a mathematical and conceptual tool used to describe limits, sequences, and abstract concepts. It's a useful concept in mathematics, but it does not correspond to a tangible, measurable quantity in the physical universe [1, 2].
3. Conceptual impossibility in the real world: If a physical quantity were truly infinite (e.g., infinite density, infinite velocity, infinite amount of energy in a closed system), it would lead to contradictions within our understanding of physics and causality [2]. 

Therefore, the statement describes an abstract mathematical concept that is widely considered to be an impossibility within the bounds of physical reality [1, 2].