Kant argued other than the ontological arguments, all other argument fall within the Cosmological and Physico-Theological argument.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:26 amOkay.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:37 am Your above is a strawman.
Read this in the OP;
Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.
This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.
Then what you seem to be implying now, is that it is indeed possible for God to be real, just not perfect.
In reference to premise #2 in this new syllogism, explain how all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:37 am I have another argument for the impossibility of God-in-general based on Kant's arguments;
1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.
By the way, even though it appears as if premise #2 is nonsense, I do happen to agree with conclusion #3.
_______
The cosmological argument cover all sorts that is related to experience, e.g. the whole of the universe that is possible to be experienced.
From there it is inevitable the cosmological argument deceptively slip in the ontological argument.
It is the same with the only other physico-theological which rely on the cosmological argument which then has to rely on the ontological.