RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 13, 2015 at 11:52 am
(This post was last modified: December 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm by IATIA.)
(December 13, 2015 at 2:34 am)Irrational Wrote:(December 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: Completely invalid and I am surprised that anyone would even entertain this type of argument.
- Why is it possible? I do not think it possible.
- Even if it were possible, that does not mandate it's existence. Unicorns are possible and they do not exist.
- Letting #1 and #2 slide, by what caveat does that pose it's existence in all worlds?
- Gotta get by 1,2, and 3 first.
It is valid argument, but it is nothing more than a trick, that's all.
To be fair, understanding modal ontological argument is a feat in itself.
I do not see the validity in it. Besides the points I made above, earlier I showed (along with others) that substitution displays the invalidity.
Effectively, any entity can be thrown in the argument and be ?logically? proven to "exist in all worlds".
How do you rationalize step two as that is the most detrimental to the argument with #3 a nose-to-nose second.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
