(March 7, 2017 at 2:48 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 7, 2017 at 1:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: You don't want to discuss this.
I do, actually. It's just that there isn't much to discuss. It is flatly wrong.
(March 7, 2017 at 1:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: You want to lecture me on something you do not even understand.
You have no idea of my credentials. Do not assume. You will be wrong.
I fully understand the ontological arguments. I fully understand Plantinga's arguments. I can say with near absolute certainty that I have studied them in more depth than you have, and am more familiar with the terms and rules in play. That is why I can dismiss them so completely in so few sentences. I possess the knowledge necessary to do so.
All you have done, thus far, is to parrot them and assume that they will be taken at face value. You don't answer any actual objections. You simply accuse anyone who points out the fallacies contained in your posts of not understanding the subject matter, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
The arguments you present are fallacious, Steve. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the facts don't change just because you don't like them.
First, I did not start this thread, I was trying to explain to TheAtheologian why 1) you can't change it up and expect it to hang together, and 2) what the real argument is within the premises. BTW, he knows how to have a discussion without sounding like a condescending prick.
Regarding the Ontological Argument, philosophers on both sides in every generation for a thousand years have been discussing this argument and you can dismiss it in a few sentences. Good thing you came around to point out their error. Too bad it wasn't sooner. You could have save them writing thousands of papers and books on the subject.
No, I don't know your credentials. I couldn't care less. I am not impressed with your content and how you deliver it.