We define God to be the most perfect being imaginable. Clearly existence is perfecter than non-existence; and clearly existence in a larger volume is more perfect than existence in a smaller volume. As God is defined to be the most perfect being, if He exists, He must exist everywhere. Either He is nowhere — or He is everywhere. (Also, since it is better to have an ugly nose than no nose at all, God has a nose.)
Except that to call God “being” or “existent” is to erroneously assume God is a mere existent. Rather, as the Root of All Being, God is that which enables existence and thus cannot itself exist. Thus God is supra-existent, which is a higher category above the level of existence and below hyper-existence. But back to the Anselmian exercise, the Plantingan puzzle: if God is anywhere, God is everywhere.
There could be a world where God was, or rather supra-existed; imagine it, it is easy if you try. Narnia suffices. But since God is there (anywhere) He’s here (everywhere) too! If one can even just barely imagine a world where God exists, even if surrounded by trillions of ghastly hypothetical godless cosmoses, then God springs forth and fertilizes every single atheist cosmos with his fertile supra-existence! It’s all or nothing! If a universe with God is conceivable, it logically follows a universe without God is inconceivable!
Now, “everywhere” does not admit granularity; God’s supra-existence is not doled out one piece per every cubic foot of cosmos. If God is in this cosmos, God is everywhere in it, sort of mixed in it; more widespread existence is more perfect, and God is most perfect. (Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger is more perfect than Peter Dinklage; it seems difficult to believe, but logic says so!)
The theological possibilities of this are staggering. (God being everywhere; not the Schwarzenegger-Dinklage observation, which just implies our leaders should be as tall and fat as possible.) Matter is made of atoms; is it more perfect for God to be floating between atoms, or to be, in a supra-existent sense, in the whole whole of the atoms themselves? Clearly it is more perfect for God to be in every atom: every atom is both God and matter, perfect and inseparable.
Since Jesus was an “incarnation” (really, a supra-existence-existence bijection) of God, a perfect union of God and Man without diminution of either, here theology can offer a hand to the uncivil beast-man atheist crowd: sure, Jesus was no-one special. We’re all Jesus!
But not only did God come down as one of us, as Jesus Christ, the cross he was martyred on was God too!
As were the nails, and the centurion with the hammer, in a less incarnate sense. The salvific death of Jesus was, indeed, God killing God on God with God to please God. While God watched and cheered, breathing God spitting God wearing God, standing on very God itself.
And then some say, with lips of God, that we live in a Godless world. As certainly as this keyboard and your screen are God Himself, that is ludicrous!
* * *
It’s not that I dislike the ontological argument. I just can’t take the silly thing seriously. This here and now was occasioned by io9 showing why mathematicians don’t belong in applications.
* * *
Also, as I got into the folly of applying mathematical logistication to empirical matters: all natural numbers (i.e. 1,2,3,…) are interesting, and I can prove it.
Actually, the proof is classical; means every mathematician has heard it, went “Ke ke ke!” in laughter, and filed it away for the next social interaction.
Proof: Assume there are uninteresting natural numbers. Since the set of natural numbers is well-ordered (well d’oh), there is a smallest uninteresting natural number. But hey, “the smallest uninteresting natural number”? That’s an interesting number! A contradiction; all natural numbers must be interesting. Q.E.D.