There’s these “ontological arguments”, which are basically folks trying to prove the existence of a god by reasoning with pure logic, so without relying on evidence. And they all sound like that. 🫠
One of the classics goes roughly like this:
There is good and bad. (Which is one hell of an axiom.)
A creature can exist which unifies all good properties. (Yet another hell of an axiom.)
Because this creature has all these good properties, it would be even gooder, if it did exist.
Since this creature unifies all good properties and its existence is itself a good property, it therefore must exist.
These arguments are also always funny, because the same logic can be used to “prove” all kinds of things. For example, a perfect island can exist, therefore it must exist. 🙃
As far as I can tell, the arguments don’t actually get better over time either, but rather just more convoluted, to make it less obvious how silly they are…
There’s these “ontological arguments”, which are basically folks trying to prove the existence of a god by reasoning with pure logic, so without relying on evidence. And they all sound like that. 🫠
One of the classics goes roughly like this:
These arguments are also always funny, because the same logic can be used to “prove” all kinds of things. For example, a perfect island can exist, therefore it must exist. 🙃
As far as I can tell, the arguments don’t actually get better over time either, but rather just more convoluted, to make it less obvious how silly they are…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
I usually heard the BS from a creationist perspective.
The universe cannot exist without a creator … which is also a hell of an assumption to turn into an axiom.
and people say religion doesn’t harm people… It obliterates their ability to logic.