Also, and I shouldn't have to say this but apparently I do: entities that actually exist do not have their properties suddenly change or be added onto, merely because somebody happens to come up with an idea that undercuts the argument you've made that is the sole piece of thought suggesting that entity exists. Me making an argument against the ontological argument should not, if we're talking about something that really exists, cause that thing to suddenly have new properties to get around that argument I made.
When I say a thing, and then three people come out of the woodwork to give their god new attributes that, oh so conveniently, were never important enough to mention until such time as they allowed the ontological argument to still be right, that not only suggests awful things about the ontological argument as it was written, that it left out so much apparently crucial information, but also is deeply suspicious.
When I say a thing, and then three people come out of the woodwork to give their god new attributes that, oh so conveniently, were never important enough to mention until such time as they allowed the ontological argument to still be right, that not only suggests awful things about the ontological argument as it was written, that it left out so much apparently crucial information, but also is deeply suspicious.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
