New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Question about a huge problem with the ontological argument

שו”תCategory: faithQuestion about a huge problem with the ontological argument
asked 4 years ago

The entity that exists in my imaginary world must exist in all possible worlds and therefore also exists in reality (of those who agree with the basic premise) because otherwise it contradicts the basic premise. But then any world in which it can be proven that the entity does not exist contradicts the existence of the entity (which is not an entity whose existence is required) and therefore logically contradicts the proof. Now if someone says that in his imaginary world there is no option for such an entity at all – then either he is lying or the statement is logically hidden, right? Because if you believe him then in his world the entity does not exist and then there is some world (for you too) in which the entity does not exist and then it is not the perfect entity that you tried to prove. Am I missing something?
 
 
 


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago
He’s not necessarily lying. He could also be wrong. That’s more common.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אוהד replied 4 years ago

So if that's the case, either all atheists are wrong and all are theists in essence and believers (the aforementioned being is complete) or no one is (at least not according to this proof). This sounds to me like something new that hasn't been discussed before, am I wrong?

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

This is not a new point. On the contrary, it is the essence of the proof, to show the atheist that he is wrong (and also does not understand himself correctly, since he is a secret believer). Anselm himself speaks of this, and I have detailed it in the notebook and the book.

אוהד ג replied 4 years ago

I read the notebook, where (and in your lessons) you refer more to an individual who proves to himself or his friend that he believes despite what he thought. So if the atheist accepts the basis, he is already committed. But here it is an acknowledgement that either the whole world believes or the whole world disbelieves. In any case, great, I understood. Who said that a billion atheists can't be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button