RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
February 14, 2014 at 1:02 am
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2014 at 1:03 am by Darkstar.)
(February 14, 2014 at 12:55 am)Rational AKD Wrote:(February 14, 2014 at 12:33 am)Darkstar Wrote: Going by that same logic, by changing only one property of god (the physical likeness of spaghetti) and leaving all others, why is it so suddenly bizarre? It isn't self-contradictory, so I fail to see the problem.because you aren't taking just one attribute so you can add one. you're taking everything away from the concept of spaghetti that makes it spaghetti. you can't just say it's immaterial, but you must also say it's no longer food, it no longer has shape color or sense. it other words you're saying it's an omnipotent spaghetti monster that is not spaghetti and is not a monster since it's immaterial.
Fair enough. Just wondering, does your argument give any reason to stop at just one god, or would it justify an infinite polytheism? I still find the notion that omnipotence is even possible (logically or otherwise) to be dubious at best.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.