RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
March 14, 2014 at 6:58 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2014 at 7:47 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(March 14, 2014 at 10:10 am)ChadWooters Wrote: (laughing)Seems my whole life is archaic. My apartment is vintage Art Deco, I write with fountain pens, and still like to play Galaga.
No shame. :p
Quote: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.
That's a little waffle to me. The problem is that this doesn't really explain what it means for that fundamental ontological substance to exist. All you're saying is that they exist with the property of potentially expressing that existence, which doesn't make sense as a property (the potential to be other things).
Quote: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.
Indeed it does, because we have no apparent reason to believe there is something more fundamental. It's not dissimilar to the fact that physics does not define a single, particular substance as the fundamental substance of reality, but a group of them that are the root of expressed properties on 'higher' levels of reality.
Now Chad, since you say that you accept what I said about modal realism and modal fictionalism, does that mean you reject Plantinga's modal ontological argument?
