Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ontological argument"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SamCoulter (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Ontological arguments are interesting, but ultimately they're just word games and prove nothing. Atheists (except the rabid YouTube variety) simply don't care about them. They're attractive to people who already believe in god, but utterly unconvincing to those who don't. Interesting, as I said, but ultimately a self-licking lollipop. There are better things to spend time on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (EDT) | Ontological arguments are interesting, but ultimately they're just word games and prove nothing. Atheists (except the rabid YouTube variety) simply don't care about them. They're attractive to people who already believe in god, but utterly unconvincing to those who don't. Interesting, as I said, but ultimately a self-licking lollipop. There are better things to spend time on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
| − | == | + | == Section deleted from article: Counter-criticism == |
| − | Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced | + | ::Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced? It must, like ontological arguments for God, be assumed “in order to be proved“. |
| + | |||
| + | ::The way in which existence is deduced as a property of perfection is different from the way in which a future (pending) puddle on pavement is deduced from present rain, because, unless something exists as a property of itself, then nothing exists. In other words, non-existence is not a property either of anything that does exist or of anything that does not exist; while existence is a property of anything that does exist; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes necessary existence; and, existence in any sense is not necessarily included in the concept of a personally possessed hundred thalers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::If God exists, then His existence surely is a necessary property of His perfection. But, if God does not exist, then it remains to be explained how it can be deduced that existence is not a property of anything that exists. For, if nothing, including existence, is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything. | ||
Revision as of 13:38, September 16, 2011
| ! | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | 
|
The argument assumes that something has to meet the definition of god. otherwise the conclusion would not follow. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 12:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ontological arguments are interesting, but ultimately they're just word games and prove nothing. Atheists (except the rabid YouTube variety) simply don't care about them. They're attractive to people who already believe in god, but utterly unconvincing to those who don't. Interesting, as I said, but ultimately a self-licking lollipop. There are better things to spend time on. --SamCoulter 19:09, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Section deleted from article: Counter-criticism
- Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced? It must, like ontological arguments for God, be assumed “in order to be proved“.
- The way in which existence is deduced as a property of perfection is different from the way in which a future (pending) puddle on pavement is deduced from present rain, because, unless something exists as a property of itself, then nothing exists. In other words, non-existence is not a property either of anything that does exist or of anything that does not exist; while existence is a property of anything that does exist; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes necessary existence; and, existence in any sense is not necessarily included in the concept of a personally possessed hundred thalers.
- If God exists, then His existence surely is a necessary property of His perfection. But, if God does not exist, then it remains to be explained how it can be deduced that existence is not a property of anything that exists. For, if nothing, including existence, is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything.