The ontological arguement is valid, insofar as valid propositions are made to support the notion. It presucceeds most ideas, for instance. Many, very basic obvious propositions/theories. The best bet is to state that God is an omnisicent being, or at least one who suggests the ability to rule as a God, (it is in my opinion absurd to expect a perfect being to rule over imperfect beings, and this supposes our own power: Man is gifted with such a power in his own posession, and is given a women as helpmeets for instance. We only wish to see God as universally true) has power over the realms of possible rational being that we would not (normally) suppose. Being it is the case that rational omniscence is a particular logical/rational fact from the get-go, it only supposes a God, or makes him more necessary.
Arguing the case for the ontological being/arguement is akin to arguing the case over a flat tire. Does the flat tire exist? If it is fully pumped up, does it make much sense to question it? What about if it is flat? A flat tire is flat! In this case, it is obvious that we have an omniscecent being, that of the air pump!
What more case needs to be made, I do not expect to see any "evidence"!
Sorry if you feel this is trolling, but we do need a logical arguement to base upon his existence, not simply pure speculations. I am open to criticisms.
Arguing the case for the ontological being/arguement is akin to arguing the case over a flat tire. Does the flat tire exist? If it is fully pumped up, does it make much sense to question it? What about if it is flat? A flat tire is flat! In this case, it is obvious that we have an omniscecent being, that of the air pump!
What more case needs to be made, I do not expect to see any "evidence"!
Sorry if you feel this is trolling, but we do need a logical arguement to base upon his existence, not simply pure speculations. I am open to criticisms.
