Changes

== problems of presupposing necessity ==

== problems of presupposing necessity ==

What might it mean to say that no kind of thing exists necessarily? It seems to me that this question is the tacit root of the Ontological Argument. It was the reason I had added the things that comprised the now-deleted Counter-criticism section. I think most people assume that there is something which is unchanging and which underlies all the physical world. For atheists, this would be a Unified Field Theory, String Theory, or etc. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:29, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

What might it mean to say that no kind of thing exists necessarily? It seems to me that this question is the tacit root of the Ontological Argument. It was the reason I had added the things that comprised the now-deleted Counter-criticism section. I think most people assume that there is something which is unchanging and which underlies all the (rest of the) physical world (for atheists, this would be a Unified Field Theory, String Theory, or etc.). I think that if the Ontological Argument were reformulated in such secular terms, then there would not be a problem with it in the minds of atheists, unlike how they are determined to see problems with the current theological version. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:29, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Three quarters down the page at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/ it says:

Three quarters down the page at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/ it says: