Hello, what do y'all think about the "A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved" by Alexander R. Pruss>"http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/GoedelianArgument2.htm"
>>17018943These arguments never made much sense to me. Why is it necessary there is a perfectly good or powerful being? Because that's what the parameters we made up allow for? And they're saying something along the lines of if it's possible for a god to exist then God must exist. But what if it's impossible? We simply don't have enough information about the universe to come to any actual conclusions either way
Modal "logic" is retarded.
this is retarded, you are presupposing the category god, then trying to prove it exists instead of arriving at a set of properties and trying to show that they alone define god
>>17018943The horde 80 IQs who post here don't actually understand logic so they don't think anything about it.
>>17019174You obviously don't know what logic is. It's clear you've never opened up a textbook in your life.
>>17019206You felt compelled to react because you know I'm talking about you.
>>17019207Nope. You just said something retarded
>>17019208You felt compelled to react because you know I'm talking about you.
>>17019219You don't know what logic is.
>>17019222You felt compelled to react because you know I'm talking about you.
>>17019223You can keep repeating this to yourself but it won't make it true. It's clear that you don't know what logic is and that you're a presuppositionalist (i.e. a mega retard)
>>17019163You didn't even read the second paragraph.
