I want to invite an open discussion if I may, hopefully a few of you reading this will take your time to record your opinion in the comments section of this blog because to be honest, I’m more than a little confused of why people can possibly think the ontological argument makes sense.
If you’re unfamiliar with the ontological argument (beware that this make me sound rather anti-God which I’m not) it’s an argument for the existence of God that I believe assumes a lot.
The unstated major premise is quite convoluted and I’m not even sure where the fallacy is in it, it just seems to be that it’s beyond fallacious to the point where it’s just plain silly.
In simple terms, for those of you too lazy to google the ontological argument, here’s a three step version of one of its forms.
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Is it just a fault of my own reasoning that I cannot see a way in which this argument could ever make one iota of sense, it’s almost post-modernist in its assumption at an obscure system connection imagination and reality, when indeed as a storyteller I should let you know that my imagination is far from close to reality at times.
And that’s when I’m sober.
So, a little help trying to explain why this argument would make sense if you believe it to please.
And if you don’t, let me know too, it’ll help me to feel less ignorant.