Talk:Ontological argument

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

The argument assumes that something has to meet the definition of god. otherwise the conclusion would not follow. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 12:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Criticism, counter-criticism

Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced (it must, like ontological arguments for God, be assumed “in order to be proved“) ? Existence is not deduced as a property of perfection in the same way that a future (pending) puddle on pavement is deduced from present rain, because, unless something exists as a property of itself, then nothing exists. In other words, non-existence is not a property of anything either that exists or that does not exist, while existence is a property of anything that exists; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes necessary existence while existence is not necessarily included in the concept of a hundred thalers. If God exists, then His existence surely is a necessary property of His perfection. In short, if nothing is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything. PatternOfPersona 18:05, 5 June 2011 (EDT)