RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
November 13, 2011 at 6:04 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What a wonderful way to say the same thing twice in one sentences without actually repeating yourself. Appealing to probability is a troubling thing. It's a claim to the material. A probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur. See all the troubling words in that sentence for the immaterial argument? We've entered the territory of appealing to immaterial "likliness", a difficult metric to define. Immaterial "events", "occurrences". The immaterial is getting awfully crowded. Words like possible or probable don't have much meaning divorced from the material world. They are words that describe very specific metrics, made from demonstrable observations, or they are invalid (by definition no less, to borrow someone's favorite line).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
