tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post179509355310891684..comments2023-07-03T11:49:37.837+01:00Comments on Theologies: The Ontological ArgumentMarikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02613745498284783614noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-36760529090016444242009-02-23T13:37:00.000+00:002009-02-23T13:37:00.000+00:00It is not ontological in as much as it deals with ...It is not ontological in as much as it deals with possibility, actuality and necessity rather than the nature of existence. Charles Hartshorne thinks it should be called the 'modal' argument since it relies on these modal categories. And it is not applicable to all existence (including islands for example); only that which is perfect.<BR/><BR/>And I guess it's not an argument so much as a proof. And if it is true that he formulated it for monks, then perhaps it is an injunctive proof - to be experienced rather than analysed.<BR/><BR/>Do I win £5?Gabriel Smyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13894658019635435783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1824261000607570706.post-38680827651655026512009-02-19T16:56:00.000+00:002009-02-19T16:56:00.000+00:00I guess it means The ontological argument is neith...I guess it means The ontological argument is neither an argument nor ontological in nature. Discuss.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247222261747552716noreply@blogger.com