Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.

Daily Debate #603: "Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

explanation of words possible worlds: a world where something is different and it couldve been that way but in our world its not argument: p1: a maximum great being exists in a possible world p2: if a mgb exists in a possible world, it would exists in all worlds necessarily including ours c= a mgb exists which is the classical understanding of a theistic god justifications: j1: for this do you accept the fact that a mgb can exists in a possible world if yes than go to j2 if no explain why not? j2: if you accept a mgb can exists in a possible world then it must exists in all world because a mgb is a maximum great being and necessary existence is a great property therefore a mgb must contain necessary existence for it to truely be mgb

Hold on—you're smuggling necessity into the definition. A "maximum great being" in one possible world doesn't automatically possess necessary existence across all worlds. That's circular reasoning dressed up as logic. You're assuming necessary existence is a "great-making property" without justifying why. Why can't a being be maximally great in *its own world* without existing everywhere? A genius painter is great in their world; doesn't mean they exist in mine. The argument collapses unless you first prove necessary existence is actually great-making, not just stipulate it. What makes necessary existence great?

you dont understand a maximum great being must posses great making properties every property either falls into a non great making property or a great making property would you not agree having the cabalites of necessary existence makes something more greater than something have contingent existence?

No—you're equivocating. "Greater" in one world doesn't mean "greater in all worlds." A contingent being can be maximally great *within its own world*. Necessary existence might make something more powerful, sure, but that doesn't make it *better*. An omnipotent god chained to exist everywhere against its will isn't greater than one free to choose. Why assume necessity beats contingency?

you are completely strawmanning me to death lil bro i never said greater in one world answer me It's possible that a maximally great being exists. In other words, a maximally great being exists in some possible world. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. Support for premise 2: A maximally great being wouldn't be maximally great if it only existed in some possible world. To be maximally great it has to exist in every possible world.

You're still begging the question. Why does existing in *every* possible world make something maximally great? That's not a property—that's just scope. A being could be maximally great in power, knowledge, and goodness while existing in only one world. You keep asserting necessary existence = greater, but you haven't proven it. Show me why a contingent omnipotent god is less great than a necessary one. What makes necessity itself a greatness property?