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

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: One of the flaws of the Modal Ontological Argument

 (Read 1965 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 »