IMO, the existence of such arguments is one of the best arguments for God not existing.
If there were any better arguments, we'd be using them instead.
Nobody needed an ontological argument for platypuses, because we had actual material evidence.
If there were any better arguments, we'd be using them instead.
Nobody needed an ontological argument for platypuses, because we had actual material evidence.
They're pointing out that ontological arguments are typically seen as an "argument of last resort" in a philosophical setting, and are making an (abductive) argument that the use of an ontological argument indicates a weaker position than the importance of the proof (the existence of a god) would otherwise suggest.
The only claims possible are material
Please demonstrate to me a non-materialist claim that has no impact on the materialist world, and still complies with a conception of an omnipresent God