|
Does anyone here actually believe that the "Ontological Proof" actually holds any weight? Are are we just debating for the hell of it?
Anyway, I shall use the same line of logic that is used in the ontological proof to prove the non-existence of God.
The "Ontological" Proof of the non-existence of God.
Let X be the perfect proof that God does not exist.
1. X is, by definition, the greatest possible proof on the subject of the existence or not of God.
2. As the greatest proof, it has all perfections. (That is, all properties which it is better to have than not to have -- logic, completeness, etc.)
3. It is better to exist than not to exist.
4. Therefore, X has the property of existence, and has it necessarily.
5. Objection -- Actually, all that proves is that if X exists, it exists necessarily.
6. X possibly exists. Let's cash this out as "There is a possible world in which X exists."
7. But then X exists necessarily in that possible world.
8. So X exists in all possible worlds.
9. The actual world is a possible world.
10. Therefore, X exists in the actual world.
11. X is a proof of the non-existence of God
12. Therefore God doesn't exist.
__________________
|