RE: Why ontological arguments are illogical
August 2, 2012 at 8:00 pm
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm by Rev. Rye.)
Well, I think Kant pretty much destroyed this argument:
1) There are two types of statements: analytic and synthetic.
2) Therefore "God exists" must be either analytic or synthetic.
3) If it's analytic (as the Ontological Argument assumed), then it's true just because of the meaning given to the words, therefore it's a tautology and can't say anything meaningful.
4) If it's synthetic, then the Ontological Argument doesn't work, because God's existence isn't contained within his definition, and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found.
C) Therefore, the ontological argument isn't sound.
Of course, given the fact that your avatar seems to be of Kant, you might well have already been aware of it.
1) There are two types of statements: analytic and synthetic.
2) Therefore "God exists" must be either analytic or synthetic.
3) If it's analytic (as the Ontological Argument assumed), then it's true just because of the meaning given to the words, therefore it's a tautology and can't say anything meaningful.
4) If it's synthetic, then the Ontological Argument doesn't work, because God's existence isn't contained within his definition, and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found.
C) Therefore, the ontological argument isn't sound.
Of course, given the fact that your avatar seems to be of Kant, you might well have already been aware of it.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
