3 ms·

Premise 1 is false. A clown is not "that for which no greater horror can be conceived". In order to be so, he would have to be omnipotent (less powerful = les

Premise 1 is false. A clown is not "that for which no greater horror can be conceived". In order to be so, he would have to be omnipotent (less powerful = less scary), eternal (able to induce constant horror), necessarily self-existing (can't be killed), etc -- in short, God. This is actually proof for God and the doctrine of Hell.

481092 7y ago
> A clown is not "that for which no greater horror can be conceived" I don't know, some people are really scared of clowns. Also as a reminder, your "proof" is something made up throughout history along with thousands of other denominations of thousands of other religions of thousands of other gods people have conceived through thousands of years. I can imagine many great things and it doesn't mean it exists, that's where this "proof" fails. Calling this "proof" is, if not a lie, but a big detriment to the notion of proofs already tested and held dear. As an addendum, if you follow your logic then you're still left with the old 'who created God' argument because although you might imagine some great entity, any entity that god can imagine should surely be greater than the god you imagine so their god must be true. You still have the infinite egress problem diluting your "proof".