Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
September 08, 2025, 10:30 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 06, 2025, 09:16 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
September 06, 2025, 07:17 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
September 05, 2025, 08:15 AM
New Britain
August 30, 2025, 07:59 PM
Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
August 09, 2025, 10:33 PM
Gaza assault
July 25, 2025, 05:18 PM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
July 01, 2025, 08:10 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
June 28, 2025, 12:12 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 23, 2025, 08:28 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument

 (Read 2101 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument
     OP - July 31, 2014, 07:51 AM
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument
     Reply #1 - August 03, 2014, 02:45 PM
    1. It is possible that a maximally great Thundercat exists
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great Thundercat exists, then a maximally great Thundercat exists in some possible world
    3. If a maximally great Thundercat exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world
    4. If a maximally great Thundercat exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world
    5. Therefore, a maximally great Thundercat exists
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument
     Reply #2 - August 03, 2014, 03:03 PM
    Lol. I'm not sure how the arguer gets to p3 from p2 anyways, it goes against axiomatic set theory.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »