I can't take ontological argument seriously. Anyone else?
>ai
>>18256706It never seemed convincing to me. The greatest possible pizza does exist. It's just that nobody knows if it's Tri Fromaggi.
>>18256706
>>18256706My problem is the idea that somehow everything imaginable exists in some possible imaginary world and that you can imagine something that "breaks out" of the imaginary to the real world.It's kind of like that trope where a writer writes a character that can escape the internal world of the book and can appear in the real world.
>>18256706The greatest possible being would necessarily exist, since existence is better than non-existence. The greatest possible pizza is not necessary.God, atheists are retards.
>>18256782/pol/tranny cope
It's literally THAT kid tier in argumentative syntaxBut yeah >>18256713>ai
>>18257142By your logic my ideal gf exists, because if she didn't, she wouldn't be my ideal, and yet I'm an incel. How do you explain that?
>>18257173>By your logic my ideal gf existsNo? Not necessarily, your ideal girlfriend is not necessary. We're talking about the perfect being.
>>18257176What now?
>e-christian in actionkek
>>18257178>My perfect girlfriend necessarily exists because.......SHE NEEDS TO EXIST OK????Damn man, stop being so desperate.God is a perfect being, a perfect being necessarily would exist. It's really that simple.Your gf is not a perfect being.
>>18257185>My imaginary friend exists because.... HE NEEDS TO EXIST OK????
>>18257187An imaginary friend is by definition not perfect.
>>18257191Ok, so he isn't your friend, but he's still a figment of your imagination.
>>18257191A perfect being is by definition imaginary
>>18257196Is existence a necessary quality for a being to be perfect, yes or no?
>>18257200Nope, true perfection does not exist irl
>>18257200no>sourcethe circle
>>18257205>>18257213So something can be perfect without existing?
>>18257216Yes
>>18257216Thats the only way something can be perfect, everything irl is flawed in some way
>>18257229>>18257232How can something have qualities without existing?
>>18257236By people talking about the imaginary thing by giving it imaginary qualities>my imaginary friend has wings and can shoot laser beams and is super cool>hey what if I made a roko basilisk Ai that tortured you wouldn't that be fucked up and evil hahaSee, easy
>>18257239If it's imaginary, it doesn't exist and therefore it doesn't have qualities. Just because you describe something doesn't mean that it exists, I can tell you that a widanat is color blue but that doesn't mean widanats exist.
>>18257242Yeah they dont exist but it does mean widanats are blue. We're nearly in the year 2026 bro, in this age of franchise slop and fictional universes the idea of fictional things having qualities isn't some far fetched concept.
>>18256706The pizza does exist. I ate it though.
>>18257142>existence is better than non-existenceWhy?
>>18257216Unicorns have color and a specific number of horns, right?
>>18257307If you disagree, why are you still alive?>>18257340No? Unicorns don't exist, they don't have horns at all.
>>18256706The guy on the right is how Italians imagine God
>>18257350Nta but>why are you still aliveCus we're biologically programmed to do that, its one of our qualities as humans. Doesn't necessarily make it better>they dont have horns at allTheir most distinguished feature is their singular horn. You know this, because you know what a unicorn is as you immediately countered with "they dont exist". You shouldn't even be able to comprehend the concept of a unicorn if you wanna pretend that they cant have attributes
>>18257142Why would the greatest possible being exist at all?
>>>/int/
>>18257414Because he's perfect.
>>18256782Most Christians are brown
>>18257142>The greatest possible being would necessarily exist, since existence is better than non-existence.Thus the greatest possible pizza would exist since existence is better than non-existence and to be the greatest pizza it must by definition exist.
>>18257142>necessarily exist, since existence is better than non-existenceAre we basically applying topology theorems here, but without a solid check on the hypothesis?The issue here is that you have 2 sets, "beings-that-exist" and "shit-I-imagined", and we have a partial ordering in the latter, with a maximal element.The first set could follow the ordering for a while, then truncate.The philosopher will be sad, but maybe the ordering over the "beings-that-exist" has a maximal element in chocolate, not in God.As an experiment, bring him some chocolate, and see if it helps.
