Why is the ontological debate for God existence is a variant of empiricism?

R

Rooker

New member
Even without empirical exidence pointing towards God, it still possible to prove His existence through ontology.

Notice the rhetorical query here.
 
Why is the existence of pink unicorns so depended on evidence, when all the fairy tale books have detailed descriptions of them. Notice my lack of the rhetorical.
 
If you are going to try and portray yourself as intelligent by using "big words" then you could at least get the basic grammar right.
 
Behold, my sons, I desire that ye should remember to keep the commandments of God; and I would that ye should declare unto the people these words.
 
You would have to prove that God's existence was a logical necessity. It would have to be almost as solid as an axiom. Can you do that? Prove God's existence using logic, please. I'd love to see it.

Evidence is better. It's difficult to formulate premises that everyone can agree on. In order for your "ontological" proof of God to have any ability to convince others, you have to get them to agree to your premises. With empirical evidence, there's not much room for debate.
 
Back
Top