Tell me what exactly is wrong with the ontological argument for the existence of god Veeky Forums

tell me what exactly is wrong with the ontological argument for the existence of god Veeky Forums

It's a pointless word game

It appeals to the head, and the heart is the problem. Unbelief is in the heart, not in the head.

Some would argue that Existence is not necessarily superior to Non-Existence, but they do not do so from the perspective of God.

No it points to God.

>Heart problem diagnosed.

Except that there's an actual heart, an actual problem and an actual diagnosis involved, and you die if you ignore it.

Now, what happens if I ignored the ontological argument? Oh that's right, nothing whatsoever

Pretty sure you die either way. The question is will you be resurrected?

Imagine the best cheeseburger possible.
But wait, surely a cheeseburger in your hand is better than one not in your hand!
Therefore being in your hand is a necessary property of "best cheeseburger."
Therefore there is a cheeseburger in your hand.

Look down. Are you holding a cheeseburger?

Really? How many people have died this year from not taking their classes on Anselm?

True. Which is why you have to understand "heart" in the sense that it was written; in the Hebrew sense. Mind, will, emotions, drive, spirit; these things are all of the heart. It's the core of your being.

Not the pump.

>God is a cheeseburger.

Puts a word in place of a physical cause.

>inb4 God is dead

>the reasoning is somehow different

>Mind, will, emotions, drive, spirit; these things are all of the heart. It's the core of your being.

If I look at the consequences, they don't really seem to be. The real world seems more biased towards the heart being a pump.

Also, why should I consider it in the Hebrew sense? Why not in the Arabic sense?

this is an analogy but you do not actually show me where the flaw lies

Yes, obviously, as a cheeseburger is not a being, much less the highest being there can possibly be.

Because the OT was written in Hebrew inspired by God, and the quran was written in Arabic by a psychopathic murderer and pedophile inspired by satan.

I'm going to say the lack of a cheeseburger in your hands

Cheeseburgers aren't being? Then what are they doing down at McDicks, not existing?

God knows.

And a Muslim would say the exact opposite.

Anyway, you've quite hilariously shown your own massive biases, christcuck. Clearly you don't give a shit about reason, you just want to pimp your god some more

Does he have a number? Because if it's lower than the number of heart failures, we really shouldn't be talking about spirits or your emotions, should we?

Was this witty in your head, before you posted it?

A muslim cannot say the exact opposite, as the quran confirms that the bible is the word of God.

All they (you) can do is mumble something something corrupted over the years mumble mumble.

Compare Muslim civilization to Christian civilization.

What things jump out at you?

For me, it would be the lack of sharia law and public floggings.

God has all the numbers m8.

The use of the word "cheeseburger" instead of "god" does not invalidate the argument, and illustrates perfectly that it's an unsound one. The fact that cheeseburgers aren't autonomous beings doesn't change a thing, you could use Chairman Mao instead, or a unicorn. Anselm's argument is a very foolish way to deduce anything.

dont you mean lack of decadent, degenerate culture?

Muslims never tried to dominate or enslave billions of people through imperialism and colonialism, so I guess they have Christians beat on that one

solid cherry picking

sure they did, Christians and Europe just did it better

Because every iteration of the ontological argument is just a special pleading that ignores the infinite regression of causality.

Tell that to the "tea-serving" boys.

>Muslims never tried

They've consistently tried you pseud. Heck, they're literally trying right now (see: ISIS).

*tips*

Its still a legitimate debate if math can exist outside our universe or even at the earliest stages of the universe, which would be required for these arguments.

not an argument

Any cheeseburger is necessarily flawed, being finite it nature. A cheeseburger that is infinite is no longer a cheeseburger, and being infinite, it can only be called God.

cant argue with those tiples t/b/h

>he thinks ISIS matters
>he actually fell for the Mooslum boogeyman

in America, more people die in car crashes daily than from terrorism in a year, putz. And it's not because you gave all your emails to the NSA and agreed to cede your rights to the state.

Oh? When did they try it? Could you give a specific occurrence or event similar to, say, the formation of the Belgian Congo? I'll be waiting ;)

Is ISIS just the JV-team Barack?

...

>Any cheeseburger is necessarily flawed, being finite it nature.

Who says that is a flaw? A perfect cheeseburger fits in your hand and your mouth. An infinite cheeseburger would destroy the universe.

...

>following a kike religion abridged for goyim
>"truth"
>"wisdom"
>"joy"

o i am laffin

Or give life to infinite universes concieved from its cheesy grandeur

What worth is a cheeseburger universe with nobody around to eat from it?

It is what it is.

>implying Christianity does give you all those qualities

It absolutely does, as the argument is to the existence of a supernatural being, not an entree.

>An infinite cheeseburger would destroy the universe.

You should contemplate the inferences of your own posts.

no u

Logic can't tell you anything about what actually exists. Logic is it's own peculiar game, but it has no bearing on existence.

It's been demonstrated that if certain axioms of modal logic are true, then an ontological argument is necessarily true. However, nobody except batshit insane people and Christians actually believe those axioms are true.

Also no argument for God's existence ever justifies belief in a particular scripture.

What indeed.

>this is somehow different

kek

Maybe to Catholics.

Slutty use of "Great" "Possible" and "Being"

>satan is the worst being possible
>it is worse to not exist than to exist
>therefore satan doesn't exist
Checkmate, Christians

>Rome

The worst possible being is worse if he actually exists.

#smoked

Not at all

If existence = more perfect, then non-existence = less perfect, and being less perfect is worse than being perfect.

An existence without Satan would be more perfect dummy.

A devil who exists can hurt you more than a devil who does not exist, and the worse the devil can hurt you, the worse the devil is.

This seems obvious.

You're probably arguing with Americans here.
That argument may not make sense to them.

u jelly

> More perfect...
> Appending qualifiers to superlatives

Fucking savage.

We the people do that kind of thing from time to time.

I wonder if at the times the Bible was written it was a standard, or we miss some books, or is poorly written, I mean if you have to create a book that is the basis of your faith, then you better write it clear.

It didn't appeal to Aquinas either, because its nonsense

>what is wrong with the arguement
>doesn't actually post the arguement he is referring to
>Doesn't even say if he is referring to the Abrahamic "God" or just a general God

>still gets 50+ replies