Page 1 of 9

The Ontological Argument

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:17 pm
by Napoleon Ier
Well?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:21 pm
by Neoteny
My mind often confuses ontological with various words that begin with two 'o's. Like oocyte. Oogenesis.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:22 pm
by Napoleon Ier
Neoteny wrote:My mind often confuses ontological with various words that begin with two 'o's. Like oocyte. Oogenesis.


Interesting.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:22 pm
by MeDeFe
Neoteny wrote:My mind often confuses ontological with various words that begin with two 'o's. Like oocyte. Oogenesis.

Is that why there's one vote for 'sound'?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:23 pm
by Neoteny
MeDeFe wrote:
Neoteny wrote:My mind often confuses ontological with various words that begin with two 'o's. Like oocyte. Oogenesis.

Is that why there's one vote for 'sound'?


:lol: I haven't voted yet. But I would definitely have voted oogenesis as sound.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:23 pm
by ignotus
Neoteny wrote:My mind often confuses ontological with various words that begin with two 'o's. Like oocyte. Oogenesis.


Ovulation, Octopus, Octagon, OMG, ontario...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:23 pm
by Curmudgeonx
The Saint Anselm version?

or just ontological arguments by their nature?

I am reminded of an old George Carlin routine: Can God create a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:24 pm
by Napoleon Ier
Curmudgeonx wrote:The Saint Anselm version?

or just ontological arguments by their nature?


Any version...the Anselm one is a little easy to pick holes in.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:31 pm
by Curmudgeonx
They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:35 pm
by Napoleon Ier
[quote="Curmudgeonx"]They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"[/quote

You don't have to, if you modify the original argument and postulate that God is the sum of all perfections, and has limitless Greatness, as opposed to Gaunilo's island which isn't a sum of all perfections.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:38 pm
by Neoteny
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Curmudgeonx wrote:They are all shit.

I can buy "cogito ergo sum", but I can't buy "I think of something, therefore it exists"[/quote

You don't have to, if you modify the original argument and postulate that God is the sum of all perfections, and has limitless Greatness, as opposed to Gaunilo's island which isn't a sum of all perfections.


It's a bit too airy for me.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:40 pm
by InkL0sed
Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:42 pm
by Neoteny
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:49 pm
by CoffeeCream
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.


Haha, I clicked on the link. Good one Neo!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:50 pm
by Neoteny
CoffeeCream wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.


Haha, I clicked on the link. Good one Neo!


I'm glad most people are good natured about rickrolling at the moment. We'll have to see about that in a month or so...

:lol:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:53 pm
by got tonkaed
i clicked on it after i found out it was a rickroll.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:54 pm
by Snorri1234
Here'san interresting article on the Ontological Argument. I think it raises some valid criticism.

Though ultimately I think it's undecidable.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:00 pm
by Neoteny
Snorri1234 wrote:Here'san interresting article on the Ontological Argument. I think it raises some valid criticism.

Though ultimately I think it's undecidable.


I found it rather airy, as well. The whole concept of Love is making an intellectual leap of faith.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:00 pm
by InkL0sed
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.


And you are not?

[size=0]By the way... I knew someone would say exactly that! Thank God I had no intention of going to Wikipedia...[/size]

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:01 pm
by ignotus
Snorri1234 wrote:Here'san interresting article on the Ontological Argument. I think it raises some valid criticism.

Though ultimately I think it's undecidable.


I think this one is better.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:03 pm
by Neoteny
InkL0sed wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.


And you are not?

[size=0]By the way... I knew someone would say exactly that! Thank God I had no intention of going to Wikipedia...[/size]


Heh, to get an understanding of how my friends and I treat each other, here is the most commonly used quote:

"I hate you, ::insert name here::."

Which is also interchangable with:

"I fucking hate you, ::insert name here::."

Also:

"I fucking hate all of you," is rather common as well.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:04 pm
by ignotus
Image

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:05 pm
by Neoteny
ignotus wrote:Image


:lol:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:24 pm
by InkL0sed
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Can someone explain what it is so I can vote?


Wikipedia is your friend.


And you are not?

[size=0]By the way... I knew someone would say exactly that! Thank God I had no intention of going to Wikipedia...[/size]


Heh, to get an understanding of how my friends and I treat each other, here is the most commonly used quote:

"I hate you, ::insert name here::."

Which is also interchangable with:

"I fucking hate you, ::insert name here::."

Also:

"I fucking hate all of you," is rather common as well.


I hate my friends too. :lol:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:32 pm
by Guiscard
Still waiting on proof of my last theological mistake, so I won't offend Nappy by making another one here... :roll: