Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation

[Neo-Scholastic]

…I'm not really familiar with (they seem archaic and have the sound of old forays into metaphysics).

(laughing)Seems my whole life is archaic. My apartment is vintage Art Deco, I write with fountain pens, and still like to play Galaga.

… you're positing something both unnecessary … You seem to merely be saying that there is a substance whose only attribute is to be.

Not exactly. I’m saying that everything in the world is made from the same basic stuff. The property of that stuff is not pure being, but the ability to be anything.

…it must be through some other property it manifests that is observable …But if that is the case, your primal matter becomes an ad hoc ontological commitment for which we can only assume exists, for all we have are the the properties by which it makes its existence known.

That position creates a monster. Now you have a reality consisting of many and varied properties without any binding principle. It makes the plurality of properties fundamental. It is not an assumption; it's a deduction. Big difference.