Consistent specifics are important if we are to consistently avoid equivocation. Equivocation is an especially fallacious of example of one of many possible recipes of misunderstanding.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 28, 2025, 9:22 am
Thread Rating:
|
The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God | athrock | 429 | 102445 |
March 14, 2016 at 2:22 am Last Post: robvalue |
|
| Why theists think their irrational/fallacious beliefs are valid | Silver | 26 | 8072 |
May 1, 2014 at 6:38 pm Last Post: Neo-Scholastic |
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
