You can't reply on this post.
I've stumbled upon this argument a few weeks back and have been thinking about it ever since it's called the "Ontological Argument" which basically goes like this, if it's possible for something to exist then it will exist.
it was first argued- from what I read- in the year 1078, that was way before we knew anything about the possibility of multiverses and string theory which makes it more plausible .
I'm so confused, what do you guys think?
this video illustrates more on the ontological argument
The Ontological Argument is nothing new, it's just word-play. You could posit any proposition with the property that it exists in all possible worlds and justify it all the same. If you take the unicorn proposition and merely add to it that it is the ultimate unicorn that exists in all possible worlds, then merely saying that this unicorn could live in a possible world would mean it exists in the actual world.
Not to mention, this argument could be reversed back onto the user:P1.) It is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not existP2.) If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then there is some possible world where a maximally great being does not exist.P3.) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4.) A maximally great being does not exist in every possible world (from 2).C1.) Therefore, a maximally great being (God) does not exist.
Problems with the website: webhost[at]fordebating.com