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...
Yesterday at 06:25 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 14, 2026, 12:55 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2026, 12:46 PM
New Britain
February 13, 2026, 11:34 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 12, 2026, 10:53 PM
ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
February 12, 2026, 12:49 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
February 09, 2026, 09:48 AM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
February 06, 2026, 05:27 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 02, 2026, 11:54 AM
What's happened to the fo...
January 09, 2026, 12:03 PM
Excellence and uniqueness
by akay
January 05, 2026, 10:14 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 05, 2025, 11:34 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument

 (Read 2190 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 »