the standard ontological argument for God:
(i) being exists. therefore the greatest being exists.
(ii) the greatest being is God. therefore, God exists.
i dont think its a bad argument, except that we only presuppose God to be the greatest being. as i have previously shown, God cannot be good, so the good must be higher than god - further, if God is not the highest being, then why call him God? so then, we can make an ontological argument against God by appealing to a higher being, rather than a non-being.
78 posts and 4 image replies omitted.>>731591>opinions are proof of their own existenceNo. Its still speculation if its physicsl or magic until we enough proof.
>as you have admitted. This was only my opinion.
>would you then say the same of being, i.e. "things exist"If you define things existing then yes I agree. Do you agree that rocks have a being? Is the best rock some kind of God?
>is a self-evident statement?Nothing is.
>>731592>thry do exist, but they dontmore contradiction
>axioms dont existif i say "i think, therefore i am", is this incorrect?
to think, one must exist, no?
Monkies baa in the Bohamas
>>731465so…. no evidence?
>>731462There are no arguments to be made, god is real, god is a manmade concept, those who like god must be exterminated indiscriminately.