(June 21, 2016 at 12:30 am)IATIA Wrote:(June 20, 2016 at 11:57 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: I have just deleted my response, you would gather what it would be, from my previous post. But again I will state, I cannt see your point, that God is apparently necessary also that ontologicial is self explinatory.( We are simply rationalizing words into existence by using these phrases is my feelings.)
The "Ontological argument" is completely invalid.
Quote:"The Ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists."
It does nothing to prove or deduce the initial unproven premise.
One needs to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity.
What is that so difficult to see? Oh, wait ... christian sunglasses.
I see this in a lot of posts. Premise 1 simply states that it is broadly logically possible that a maximally great being exists (not that God does exist). If you disagree with this you need at least a reason why. You do not need "to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity". If you think that, you do not understand the argument.
