>>71
fails so so so hard
I hate philosophy fags who stay in the classes and think they can actually reason well. In the philosophy classes I took, they were full of retards. I was able to in seconds solve any philosophy problem the teacher posed, even the "ancient ones that took centuries to solve". I constantly stumped my stupid classmates and often the teachers with dozens of years of experience with my arguments (two were even fairly well known published authors). No, I'm not delusional, I got a 109.5% grade in my logic course out of 110%. The average was 61%. I missed one problem, which was logically correct (I didn't want to look like an ass and argue it though). Also, I never, ever studied for this course and laughed when the classmates in the philosophy major cried to the instructor "please help me, I don't understand ANY of this, I don't want to fail!!!" Philosophy retards SUCK
Ok, now that you've listened to by bragging, I'll tell you the point:
TAKING PHILOSOPHY CLASSES MEANS NOTHING. THE PHILOSOPHY MAJOR MEANS NOTHING. IT'S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE WELL. IF ANYTHING, MAYBE IT TURNED YOU INTO SLIGHTLY LESS OF A RETARD, BUT PROBABLY NOT.
Next time instead of standing on your high horse against people you are arguing against, telling them to "take some philosophy courses before you argue with someone of MY calibre", you should look at your own arguments first. You are a disgrace to the great philosophers throughout the ages, a modern day monkey who learned to stupidly mimik those who are greater than you.
The Ontilogical argument for God fails for the following reasons
First, at BEST it only argues that something exists which is greater than everything else.
Second, since "greatness" is ENTIRELY a man-made construction, it means nothing as far as the unvierse is concerned. You can't make ANY claim about ANY property of the universe if you use abstract, objective ideas. Your claim that "we all agree that real things are greater than imaginary things" is not only baseless, but wrong. Many people would NOT agree, and since it's objective, you can't say they're wrong. Proof void.
THIRD, the proof of 'imaginary->reality' become circular and worthless the moment you can concieve of something greater than anything that exists. It's like saying "this sentence is a lie", it doesn't make any sense to say "X is the greatest thing that exists. But I can concieve of X + 1, which is greater. But since it doesn't exist, it isn't greater." It's an endless loop of logic, and can't be used to prove anything.
Hahaha, I'm just kidding, I know you're a troll :)
Or I seriously hope so :/