On Wikipedia, a request that the article titled Xkcd be changed to to XKCD is under discussion. You are welcome to comment until consensus is reached.
There are still 68 explanations we need to complete. Help us finish them!
Also, help us explain Randall's What If? articles! We need to add the missing summaries and fix the existing ones. (see here)
Also, help us explain Randall's What If? articles! We need to add the missing summaries and fix the existing ones. (see here)
Talk:1505: Ontological Argument
Revision as of 13:55, 30 March 2015 by 108.162.237.186 (talk)
Reminds me some kind of the Babel Fish... Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the greatest fallacy of ontological argument the fact that the set of entities may not be well-ordered by "greatest" or "goodness"? -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's a great point, and (IMHO) a truly serious problem in these attempts to "order" gods (maybe it stems from being tied down to monotheistic thinking?). But it's not really a "fallacy," properly speaking. Not all flaws in reasoning are fallacies...
Yay a potential large, all-encompassing argument about religion waiting to happen. Oh glory day. The Goyim speaks (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Any chance this is really about an omnipotence paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Is he so powerful that he can find a flaw in any argument that proves he exists?
