Should we stop using the Ontological Argument?

(Juan Romero) #21

I can answer “Vibranium exists in some possible worlds.”

(George Brooks) #22

You can? That’s word magic, right?

What you mean to say is that, “In some possible words, there is a possibility of something like Vibranium.”

This is not a statement of inevitability; it is a statement of possibility. It may turn out that Marvel Comics may have been optimistic that the multiple traits of Vibranium could ever co-exist in a single element.

The point of the multi-verse theory is not that Any-Thing is possible, but rather:

“Any thing that is possible, must exist somewhere.”

(RiderOnTheClouds) #23

That is a good refutation of Anselm’s ontological argument, but not that of Plantinga’s one, which involves possible worlds. It is better for a being to exist in all worlds, not just a possible one,

(RiderOnTheClouds) #24

Possible worlds have nothing to do with the multiverse theory, it’s an entirely philosophical idea which entails ‘potentiality’.

(RiderOnTheClouds) #25

Currently the only real issue I have with the MOA is knowing whether or not something can be objectively good.

(George Brooks) #26


To say a being “exists in a world of concepts” is Not Equal to saying that a being “Exists Somehwere”.

Existing as a concept is not Existing.