From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 23:23:21 MDT
At 01:06 AM 6/17/02 -0400, Eliezer wrote:
>Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>> I understand the fundamental idea that nothing *cannot* exist, by
>> definition; there must always be something. I think the more useful
question
>> is always "Why does this particular something exist, rather than some other
>> something?"
Precisely.
>This sounds to me like the ontological proof for the existence of God.
It might sound like it to you, but it isn't.
>Why
>must there always be something?
How could there not always be something? A Simulator diverts the electrons
running Entity1, shutting Entity1 down, and weirdly supposes it has proved
something interesting. How empty a gesture, though. Switch off
*everything*, so there's literally nothing left to muse on the flaw in the
ontological argument (which erroneously supposes being to be a predicate
rather than a precondition), and I will be persuaded. Oh no, wait, don't
touch that big black lev--
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:51 MST