RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 28, 2016 at 8:07 am
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2016 at 8:12 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Oh no my post wasn't worthless, Esq, your brilliant post didn't point out the particular error Roadrunner made that I tried to point out.
I'll try to make it clearer, I write badly:
@ Roadrunner:
My bolding and underlining. Bolded parts are referring to existence in general, underlined parts to a living being.
Roadrunner these two definitions of "being" are not the same:
So, these are the two definitions of "being" (existence and a living entity) you equivocated, try not to do it again as it is clearly a mistake. Being =/= a being.
@ Esq
I hope my contribution was not entirely without merit?
ETA: I say this because you're by far the superior debater of us two, and I feel like I have almost nothing left to contribute when you're involved in a debate sometimes... due to your awesomeness
I'll try to make it clearer, I write badly:
@ Roadrunner:
Roadrunner Wrote:In Merriam Webster and a few other dictionaries, "being" "exist" are somewhat circular (referencing each other), so I would say that according those definitions your reference to a non-existing being; is incoherent.
My bolding and underlining. Bolded parts are referring to existence in general, underlined parts to a living being.
Roadrunner these two definitions of "being" are not the same:
Dictionary.com Wrote:existence.
"the railway brought many towns into being"
Dictionary.com Wrote:a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
"alien beings"
So, these are the two definitions of "being" (existence and a living entity) you equivocated, try not to do it again as it is clearly a mistake. Being =/= a being.
@ Esq
I hope my contribution was not entirely without merit?
ETA: I say this because you're by far the superior debater of us two, and I feel like I have almost nothing left to contribute when you're involved in a debate sometimes... due to your awesomeness
