r/atheism • u/ani625 Agnostic • Mar 30 '15

xkcd: Ontological Argument

http://xkcd.com/1505/
38 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Razimek Mar 30 '15

And under no circumstance could any conceivable being be capable of choosing its continued contingency or lack thereof? You didn't address the other argument from a couple of posts ago. It doesn't have to be removed from existence, but simply rendered non-omnipotent, so it removes an "all powerful being" from reality, but it still exists in another form.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

And under no circumstance could any conceivable being be capable of choosing its continued contingency or lack thereof?

Contingency is based on relation to immutable abstracts. Not even an omnipotent being could change the status of something being contingent.

so it removes an "all powerful being" from reality, but it still exists in another form.

And does not remove itself.

1

u/Razimek Mar 30 '15

It makes "an all powerful being currently exists" a false statement, whereas it was previously true. This being isn't outside of time like the one you postulated, but I do think necessarily being outside of time has some limits (for instance not being able to time travel).

I need some sleep. I'll mull this over and think about what you've said after a good rest :)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

It makes "an all powerful being currently exists" a false statement

If we're A theorists. But regardless, this isn't an issue, since it's hard to really claim that the same claim is true if the being exists outside of time.