539
edits
Changes
Talk:Ontological argument (view source)
Revision as of 23:09, August 26, 2011
, 23:09, August 26, 2011no edit summary
The argument assumes that something has to meet the definition of god. otherwise the conclusion would not follow. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 12:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
The argument assumes that something has to meet the definition of god. otherwise the conclusion would not follow. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
== Criticism, counter-criticism ==
== Criticism, 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“) ? Existence is not deduced as a property of perfection in the same way that 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 of anything either that exists or that does not exist, while existence '''''is''''' a property of anything that exists; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, ''perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes necessary existence'', while existence 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 He does not exist, then it remains to explained how it can be deduced that existence is '''''not''''' a property of anything. In short, if nothing is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 18:05, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
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“) ? Existence is not deduced as a property of perfection in the same way that 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 of anything either that exists or that does not exist, while existence '''''is''''' a property of anything that exists; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, ''perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes necessary existence'', while existence 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 He does not exist, then it remains to explained how it can be deduced that existence is '''''not''''' a property of anything. In short, if nothing is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 18:05, 5 June 2011 (EDT)