Ontological Argument Defense

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Crapulence. Necessity does not mean eternal existence. Necessity can begin anywhere within a timeline of existence, and end anywhere within. The dependencies of a necessary entity will also end of course but that is irrelevant. You have defined necessity as equal to eternal and this is not the case.

Nonsense. If it is necessary, then for it to cease to be necessary implies that it was never necessary - but contingent. Contingency speaks of that which is ephemeral.

Necessity speaks of "it MUST be this way".

If it is not this way at any point in the timeline, it accordingly cannot be a necessary truth.

If A != A, it invalidates the supposed necessary truth of A = A (the Law of Identity). Ergo, A = A's necessity is dependent on it always being true.

PJ, I never said I agreed with you. What I meant was it was ridiculous of you to think that nothingness is the producer of god. Especially considering that you yourself consider nothingness is an absurd starting point for anything.

Okay. Misunderstood, then.

Well riddle me this: Do you hold that it is coherent to say that nothing could produce something, whilst at the same time retaining every aspect of nothingness?

PJ, the OA postulates a greatest being that may or may not exist. This is why it is a circular argument. Saying something exists as the greatest being then saying it must exist because the greatest being can't not exist...is insanity.

Not at all, and let me show you why:

1. Something can exist both in intellectu (in the mind) and in re (in physical existence).

2. To lack existence in either is to be deficient.

3. The greatest coherent conception cannot have deficiencies which are not impossible.

4. Existence in both in intellectu and in re is not impossible (puppies are a good example).

5. Ergo, the greatest coherent conception necessitates existence in intellectu and in re.

 

[Enterprise-D]

PJ there is no logical justification for imagining your premise, circularly rationalizing it by calling it the greatest conception together with purporting that it must exist because existence is greater than non-existence. It is pure, unadulterated rubbish, since it begins in your imagination and is entirely subjective. The OA starts with a desired result and "karmafies" itself to the postulation. Height of BS.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Riddle me this:

Is it, or is it not, superior to be able to be both thought of and to be a physical object, rather than one or the other? Given that it is possible to be both at the same time without any contradiction?

 

[Enterprise-D]

This is irrelevant PJ since imagination and thought do not automatically lend to physical existence (or vice versa). They are not necessarily related, interlinked or even bidirectionally affected by each other.

In other words PJ...just because you can think it does not mean that it exists at all whether or not it is the greatest thought ever achieved by mankind!

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Do you agree that a square-circle is an impossible construct? When said square-circle implies "a two-dimensional object with the qualities of circles and squares held at the same time and in the same manner"?

 

[Enterprise-D]

I don't care about a square circle, or what you're trying to parallel with that train of thought...I've seen you use the square circle argument already and it proves nothing.

Carrying this further is pointless PJ. Logically, a thought...a wish...cannot be proof of any sort of existence.