Friday, May 22, 2009

Fun with Ontology

The ontological argument for the existence of god plays a tedious set of word games that proceed on a definition of god as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

But why stop the tedious word games there? Let us consider that than which nothing more ...
... oblong, pear-shaped, round, circular, triangular, pointy, small, large, gun-obsessed, pickled, witty, cheesy, peculiar, greedy, sleazy, disgusting, vomit-inducing, brittle, red, orange, purple, whitish-gray, peppery, salamander-shaped, reminiscent of the TV show Maude, wistful, cheery, grumpy, frumpy, Utah-ish, gassy, thin-skinned, petulant, groovy, sedulous, watery, dry, sunny, gravitational, horizontal, crescent-moonish, artificial, made-up, lunar, inky, bloody, fart-smelling, giggle-inducing, troublesome, luminescent, dispositive, warlike, irrational, inseparable, humiliated, humiliated, wrong, citizen-spirited, ridiculous, loosey-goosey, fabulous, perpendicular, trapezoidal, imaginary, distant, close, pain-relieving, indirect, frozen, musty ...
... can be conceived. Mustn't all these exist -- not to say they all must exist in a single entity? I don't know, but the honest inquirer in pursuit of this word game must place due emphasis on conceived. The most Utah-ish entity that exists may or may not measure up to the most Utah-ish entity conceivable.


No comments: