RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 28, 2016 at 8:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2016 at 8:52 am by GrandizerII.)
(June 28, 2016 at 8:05 am)SteveII Wrote:(June 27, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Irrational Wrote: If a necessary being cannot possibly exist, then it doesn't actually exist. That's it.
No offence, but it seems you don't understand the original argument, the parody, or my reply to it. So rather than just make a statement that someone told you the argument proves and end with "that's it", phrase your responses in the form of a question and a discussion can be had.
Sigh ... Then maybe you should've said that right near the start of the thread when you were actually agreeing with me about what the ontological argument is about. No offence, but it seems like you must have very selective memory. Do I or do I not understand the original argument?
Anyhow, I think I understand what the original argument is, and what the parody is. But I must admit I don't understand at all the point of your objection regarding premise 4. Both versions of the argument do not establish either the possibility or the impossibility of the maximally great being. This is what I mean when I say it goes both ways. Both are valid arguments, but both are empty as well. They don't bring any new information to the table.
