(August 3, 2012 at 1:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: -Usually it argues that when you're thinking of God, you must be thinking of something that actually exists; as opposed to when you thinking of Superman, or unicorns, where you're not thinking of something that actually exists.-
Must I? Why might that be?
Hmm. I thought the meaning of that sentence was clear. I wasn't saying that that was true, I was saying that that was what ontological arguments argue.
I'll try again:
"Usually ontological arguments claim that, 'If you're thinking of God, you must be thinking of something that actually exists.' When you think of something like unicorns, or the state of Oregonia, you're thinking of things that don't actually exist; whereas when you think of things like beavers, or the state of Oregon, you're thinking of things that actually exist."
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
