I voted this down. Why? Because if you’re going to post an old argument which has been disputed many times, you should acknowledge the common responses to it and be able to articulate some reason as to why you don’t accept them. This post has utterly failed at doing that.
EDIT: If you did, I am curious to know what you think I didn’t mention that I should mention re: criticisms. I also could see no other great post on Gödel’s ontological argument (which is, in meaningful ways, different from others such as Anselm’s). I thought it would make for interesting discussion!
I voted this down. Why? Because if you’re going to post an old argument which has been disputed many times, you should acknowledge the common responses to it and be able to articulate some reason as to why you don’t accept them. This post has utterly failed at doing that.
I would really like to know what criticism I did not include that I should have included, if you are going to make a comment such as this?
Did you read the conclusion?
EDIT: If you did, I am curious to know what you think I didn’t mention that I should mention re: criticisms. I also could see no other great post on Gödel’s ontological argument (which is, in meaningful ways, different from others such as Anselm’s). I thought it would make for interesting discussion!
It reads like an essay arguing X with a tiny disclaimer at the end to cover yourself, but fair enough. I’ve retracted the downvote.
It is about a proof which argues X. Sorry, I’m quite a high decoupler. For what it’s worth, the proof truly does not convince me
EDIT: but thanks for letting me know how some may see it! :)