Ontological arguments are defined as those made from logic alone with no reference to observation. But no logical deduction can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises. All logic does is draw the conclusions that follow from those premises and check for any inconsistencies. Only by observation can we demonstrate whether the premises accurately describe or reflect the real world. Therefore, all ontological arguments are pointless.
If I were to assume a worldview of secular humanism, nobody would be able to deny it, given that I add that rejecting such a worldview makes you unreasonable, religious or discriminatory.
if however, the existence of such a worldview were affirmed throughout media, taught as sacred truth on the internet and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to accept it would become a mark of eccentricity and backwardness.
Any thread or post that starts with 'x is defined by y' is defined by faggotry.
Ontological arguments are a certain CLASS of arguments that deduce x by way of 'necessity'. They are nut 'defined' by anything other than that.
The axioms of mathematics do not require empirical evidence for their validity. Are mathematics therefore pointless?
>Ontological arguments are a certain CLASS of arguments that deduce x by way of 'necessity'
Didn't Hume prove that all things are 'neccary' in the ontological sense, effectively destroying the entire filed forever.