4 ms·

I've stumbled on the ontological argument without knowing that it's called that myself - not as an argument for god, but for multiple universes. Namely, one can

I've stumbled on the ontological argument without knowing that it's called that myself - not as an argument for god, but for multiple universes. Namely, one can conceive a universe so powerful that one of its properties is that it must necessarily exist, even if it doesn't yet and even if there is currently only one universe - a universe so powerful that it is capable of breaking the isolation inherent of a multiverse and will itself into existence. I suppose you could argue for anything with this reasoning.

Animats 3y ago
> I suppose you could argue for anything with this reasoning. Yes. It's the divide-by-zero error of philosophy.
wddkcs 3y ago
That's why the ontological framing is important- notice that 'powerful' doesn't mean anything inherently. Being, on the other hand, is necessary and inescapable for any metaphysical framework. To have anything, being must exist, necessarily. Therefore, to imagine the greatest possible being, seems not so much a stretch, compared to an arbitrary characteristic, such as 'power'. That there is a must 'powerful universe' does not seem a priori necessary, whereas insofar as existance exists, there is necessarily a greatest possible being. That is not to say that you can get to any meaningful conception of a God from that ontological framework, only that the it is only an argument when it is framed ontologically- once you stretch it to other domains, the inherent strength of the argument fails.