Is Anselm's ontological argument sound?

Is Anselm's ontological argument sound?

no

No.
t.Catholic

I was stoned the other day and came up with a really watertight theological argument.

Starting from the premise that God is an omnipotent being, we can therefore conclude that even if God didn't exist he would be able to use his unlimited powers to make himself real.

>Starting from the premise that God is

you're begging the question.

Love it! Stealing this!

The fact that we can even conceive of an omnipotent being is sufficient proof there is one.

How?
Just because you can conceive something, it exists? Did you pull that out of your ass?

This isn't proof to nothing

I can conceive your corpse. Are you dead now, or did I make a clone of you that then died, and is now somewhere in the universe?

>The fact that we can even conceive of an omnipotent being is sufficient proof there is one.

sure, just don't call it an argument.

An omnipotent being's power makes no heed of pitiful human notions like existence or reality. At once, God exists, God doesn't exist, neither existence nor nonexistance and both at the same time

>An omnipotent being's power makes no heed of pitiful human notions like existence or reality

THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE AN OMNIPOTENT BEING FOR IT TO EXIST IN NON-EXISTENCE.

>i think incoherence sounds profound

cool

How do you know that?

>ontological arguments

What does it mean 'to be' for an entity that at once Is and Transcends Being?

Nothing, none of what you are saying means anything. Please answer what it means, if you can't comprehend God, then there is no Holy Spirit helping you, and you were not truly made in his image.

Well then why the fuck does it matter?
It's just a concept. A concept exist. Ok, it does.
All concepts exist.
How does it bring anything of value to anything?

Coincidentally, that's what the Holy Trinity is all about. God is seemingly paradoxical because he is beyond imperfect human logic.

So God is imperfect? Or are you created in his physical image? You can't have faith in something incomprehensible, because the concept means nothing to you. You believe in nothing, you are nothing, and your God is nothing to you. So what does that even mean?

I believe in nothing and everything. Belief is also beyond positive human logic.

Thologians began with the premise that god did not exist and used reason and logic to prove this to be untrue. You did it the wrong way round so it doesn't count

The ontological argument is pure semantics. Other than that, 'existence is not a predicate' or defining characteristic

Read Kant.

The only theologian worth his salt is aquinas and his 5 rules/ steps

>I believe in nothing and everything
So nothing, and also the universe exists.

So in the end our belief system is the exact same you just use some roundabout garbage to get there. Great man, whatever makes you happy.

Aquinas is just one in a very long line.
If you decide to get into it, it's a fascinating subject.
His five ways are incredibly complex and surprisingly coherent.
Most people don't get them, Hume for example got half of it completely wrong.

I'm know im going to delve deeper into his aesthetic principle because its pertinent to the works of joyce, whom i am reading now.

doubt im going to read the summa theologia though

No.
And if you have read enough of those arguments, you will be able to make that call without reading it.

christfags btfo

Read Platinga's version of the argument.
Kant and atheits btfo!

the modal argument? nah

there isn't a god, get over it faggots

>the day you realized Kant btfos most useless discussions

And I don't even like Kantianism.

You can't have faith in something incomprehensible, because the concept means nothing to you.

But you can. That's the whole point of faith, to take the leap into the unknown and into the uncertain.

My perfect waifu is necessarily perfect.

My perfect waifu wouldn't be perfect if she didn't exist.

Therefore my perfect waifu exists. See ya l8r virgins.

No, that is superstition.

Faith is to assume axioms are true. Like people being inherently compassionate. That is faith.

Believing whatever and not even understanding what that is and still spouting conclusions based on that is base superstition.

Faith isn't merely your personal concept of truth. He's right and you're wrong. Reconsider assuming this is true.

I'm guessing you are referring to the "spiritual experience".

Faith is not to be a spiritual plebian. The "leap into the unknown" is not about dogma or the feeling of relief one has when subscribing to them.

Faith is knowing what the unknown is, you are delving in. If you do not apply this practice, all you are left with is the "god of gaps".
And that is bourgeoise theology.

I can't conceive of a truly omnipotent being, and neither can you. The human mind doesn't do that.

Faith implies that it could be wrong and that regardless you still believe.

If you don't get that, it's okay.

And that implies you know what you could be wrong about.
And that is an axiom.

Now stop pretending you ever read anything substantial on the matter.

Your rejection of God as a transcendental being leaves the true nature of God untouched.

You're attacking the divine with the tools of men. Good luck.

>The essence of a nonexistent entity preeceeds its existence
>The essence of a nonexistent entity causes its existence
>Something from nothing
>Newton's second law of thermodynamics
Sounds about as sensible as Marxism

Platinga is in conflict with Aquinas, Aquinas>Platinga.
Feser's Aquinas is an excellent overview

>>Something from nothing

that happens fairly often, learn some physics

underrated

It's valid. However, proving it either sound or unsound is impossible.

No, it doesn't.

The tomato IS a fruit, though

its literally not tho

No. And this is some really basic stuff- conceivability does not imply actuality.

>arguing with unironic Christian apologists

don't do it, it's a colossal waste of time

it literally is man

Butthurt euphoric detected.

checked