The ontological view and the AJB
In the first book of the trilogy [138] you wrote about a very large island, there was no problem, since it proves the existence of an existing object,
How can the existence of the largest teapots and spaghetti monsters be proven?
In rejecting the proof from AJB, you explained that if it is not necessary for A to prove its existence, and before that you explained with good taste that if it is proven that I think something exists, I also have to think that it exists if I am not a skeptic?
But not if I imagine it as existing. Only if I come to the conclusion that it exists.
By the way, as far as I remember, I wrote several rejections there.
If I understood correctly, the whole essence of the ontological argument is about what I think in my mind [not what I say in my heart], and if I am not skeptical I am supposed to accept that it is also in reality.
[Another rejection you wrote about AJB that its existence is not part of its perfection, unlike God. Prophetic words. Perhaps because of your opinion that existence is not part of perfection you said this, but there is no difference between an island and God in this context.]
Even an extremely large island [not lost] can be proven,
And Anselm failed in a serious error that by proving it, nothing can be proven at all, it is a shame to present this argument in my opinion.
You misunderstood. I repeat: a suggestion is not a conclusion that comes to mind. I either suggest some being as existing or I come to the conclusion that there is. It is not the same thing.
I will try to convey to Anselm that he should be ashamed if and when I meet him. In the meantime, read again because you did not understand.
What does it matter what a suggestion is?!?! Whatever it is, why does it exist with God and not with islands of teapots and witches?? According to this argument, anything can be proven!! What is the difference between necessary and not necessary?!?!
Have you met him yet? I understood that he meant a type of prayer, so there is no reason to snot at him for nothing.
The Rambam has an analogical proof: And if it arises from the knowledge that He is not existent, nothing else can be found.
Since this arises from the knowledge that nothing exists, it follows that nothing exists. 🙂
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
