Ontological Disproof of God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Well that's essentially what ontology is - to argue something into (or in this case, out of) existence.  To an ontological philosopher, it makes no difference as to whether God exists in any sense of what we think of as 'reality', just as long as a non-refutable argument can be constructed either for or against God (noting that 'non-refutable' doesn't necessarily mean 'true').

In that sense, God is very much like a unicorn.  Never mind that there aren't unicorns, or that there are no fossil unicorns, or that there isn't an ecological niche which can only be filled by unicorns.  As long as I can construct an argument that, on strictly logical grounds, cannot be refuted, unicorns must exist.

Boru