[ SECRET POST #3247 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3247 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #464.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: I think I just found a new counterargument to the ontological argument

[feotakahari]

That a hypothetical or imaginary being doesn't fit the definition of God and can't accurately be called that. (To be clear, I'm not saying it's a true argument, just that it follows from the assumption the premises are true.)

Re: I think I just found a new counterargument to the ontological argument

[(Anonymous)]

feo! it doesn't matter whether or not a hypothetical / imaginary being can be called god! if it's merely hypothetical, then it doesn't exist! the whole point of the ontological argument is that it's arguing that God must exist as a matter of logical necessity (because the most perfectly perfect being must be perfect in all attributes, and existence is an attribute).

You don't need to do all this faffing around with whether or not a hypothetical being is worthy of being called God. At the point where you are saying that the ontological argument's line of reasoning is insufficient to logically necessitate the existence of God, you have disproved it. You can stop at that step of your argument. The step after that is unnecessary. It is not important whether or not the hypothetical conceptual construct of a non-existent perfect being could be called God. It does not exist.

And that crucial step - the part where the ontological argument does not actually prove the necessary existence of God - is the thing that I think is recapitulating Kant.