1505: Ontological Argument - Revision history

42.book.addict at 17:26, 14 November 2025

2025-11-14T17:26:53Z

1234231587678 at 01:45, 4 April 2024

2024-04-04T01:45:27Z

172.69.65.172 at 04:28, 17 December 2023

2023-12-17T04:28:21Z

FaviFake: Link not needed, everyone knows what a title text is

2023-07-24T10:08:41Z

Link not needed, everyone knows what a title text is

Vandalbane: Undo revision 285088 by Davidy22 is built for BBC (talk)

2022-06-01T17:07:49Z

Undo revision 285088 by Davidy22 is built for BBC (talk)

Davidy22 is built for BBC at 17:07, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T17:07:40Z

Theusaf: Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

2022-05-26T20:02:03Z

Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

Show changes

Donald Trump: Reverted edit by anti-crap user

2022-05-26T18:52:12Z

Reverted edit by anti-crap user

Show changes

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

2022-05-26T18:05:13Z

Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Show changes

Donald Trump: Crapped page

2022-05-26T16:51:05Z

Crapped page

Show changes

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 The comic also may be drawing an analogy to the {{w|omnipotence paradox}}, as it also refers to the idea that God's power would be greater if He could do the logically impossible. If [[Randall]] believes that Anselm's ontological argument is logically sound and based on true premises, then he should think it is impossible to disprove. Therefore, he references the omnipotence paradox by requiring that God do such an impossible thing in order to have maximally great power.
-A popular parody of the ontological argument is that of {{w|Richard Dawkins}}, in his best-selling book “{{w|The God Delusion}}”. His parody is a version of the argument which attempts to prove that God does not exist. It is similar in approach to this comic and to the omnipotence paradox, in that it also requires a God that can do the logically impossible. In Dawkins' version—[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontological_argument&oldid=691165762#Douglas_Gasking borrowed from the Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking]—God's greatness is demonstrated by his creation of the world. A being that somehow overcomes the great handicap of not existing and goes on to create the world would certainly be greater than a being that exists and creates the world. Therefore God, who by definition is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, must not exist.
+A popular parody of the ontological argument is that of {{w|Richard Dawkins}}, in his best-selling book “{{w|The God Delusion}}”. His parody is a version of the argument which attempts to prove that God does not exist. It is similar in approach to this comic and to the omnipotence paradox, in that it also requires a God that can do the logically impossible. In Dawkins' version—{{w|Special:Diff/691165762|borrowed from the Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking}}—God's greatness is demonstrated by his creation of the world. A being that somehow overcomes the great handicap of not existing and goes on to create the world would certainly be greater than a being that exists and creates the world. Therefore God, who by definition is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, must not exist.
 Another, rather more famous parody, but which is entirely unrelated to the comic in approach, is that of {{w|Gaunilo of Marmoutiers}}, in which he argues for the existence of a maximally great island. This parody, added to the comic, seems to tell us what happened to the legendary {{w|Atlantis}}. It is worth noting that Anselm himself rebutted Gaunilo's argument, claiming that it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Anselm's original argument.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 This comic, in particular in the way Megan and [[Cueball]] are walking and in its reference to theology, greatly resembles the earlier comic [[1315: Questions for God]].
-The title text carries the absurdity a step further.
+The title text carries the absurdity a step further by stating that a God holding the record for eating the most skateboards is better than a God without it, continuing the logic in the comic.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 {{w|Ontology}} is the study of {{w|being}}, {{w|reality}}, and {{w|existence}}. “The {{w|ontological argument}}” is an attempt at proving the existence of {{w|God}} through reasoning about the {{w|nature}} of “being”.
-[[Megan]]'s statement in the comic is likely a reference to what is considered the first ontological argument, that of 11th Century philosopher {{w|Anselm of Canterbury}}. His argument starts by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be {{w|concept|conceive}}d”. Another step in the argument is that you can conceive of such a being even if you don't believe it exists. Yet another step is the statement that a being, of which one can conceive, and which exists, is certainly greater than a being of which one can conceive and which does not exist. Implicit in the argument are two essential premises, both of which are controversial.  These are a) that the existence of such a being is possible, and b) that existence is a great-making quality.
+[[Megan]]'s statement in the comic is likely a reference to what is considered the first ontological argument, that of 11th Century philosopher {{w|St. Anselm of Canterbury}}. His argument starts by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be {{w|concept|conceive}}d”. Another step in the argument is that you can conceive of such a being even if you don't believe it exists. Yet another step is the statement that a being, of which one can conceive, and which exists, is certainly greater than a being of which one can conceive and which does not exist. Implicit in the argument are two essential premises, both of which are controversial.  These are a) that the existence of such a being is possible, and b) that existence is a great-making quality.
 The comic makes fun of Anselm's ontological argument by extending to absurdity the claim that a being who exists is greater than one who does not exist, and that therefore God must exist. A God who can disprove the ontological argument must be greater than one who cannot disprove the ontological argument, therefore the ontological argument proves the existence of a God that disproves it. This argument, though a joke, carries some weight. If Anselm's argument is sound, then disproving it is impossible, and God cannot do it.  But if doing things is a great-making quality (a common assumption), then surely doing impossible things would be an even stronger great-making quality. Therefore the argument is able to be disproven, albeit only by God, which contradicts the initial premise that the argument is sound. Therefore, either doing things is not great-making, or the entire ontological argument is invalid reasoning.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The comic makes fun of Anselm's ontological argument by extending to absurdity the claim that a being who exists is greater than one who does not exist, and that therefore God must exist. A God who can disprove the ontological argument must be greater than one who cannot disprove the ontological argument, therefore the ontological argument proves the existence of a God that disproves it. This argument, though a joke, carries some weight. If Anselm's argument is sound, then disproving it is impossible, and God cannot do it.  But if doing things is a great-making quality (a common assumption), then surely doing impossible things would be an even stronger great-making quality. Therefore the argument is able to be disproven, albeit only by God, which contradicts the initial premise that the argument is sound. Therefore, either doing things is not great-making, or the entire ontological argument is invalid reasoning.
 The comic also may be drawing an analogy to the {{w|omnipotence paradox}}, as it also refers to the idea that God's power would be greater if He could do the logically impossible. If [[Randall]] believes that Anselm's ontological argument is logically sound and based on true premises, then he should think it is impossible to disprove. Therefore, he references the omnipotence paradox by requiring that God do such an impossible thing in order to have maximally great power.
@@ Line 26: / Line 24: @@
 This comic, in particular in the way Megan and [[Cueball]] are walking and in its reference to theology, greatly resembles the earlier comic [[1315: Questions for God]].
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀<br>
+{{comic
 | number    = 1505
 | date      = March 30, 2015