Adam’s Nonsensical Ontological Argument

Here I go again with more of this think­ing stuff. You ever get the feel­ing that you’ve thought of some­thing mind­blow­ing and then find out lat­er that some­one else thought about it 100s of years be­fore you and it was prob­a­bly just chill­ing in your sub­con­scious? Yeah, I hate that. So a few days ago I was blab­ber­ing about on­tol­ogy to lit­tle avail. Almost a year ago I was blab­ber­ing on the na­ture of know­ing to ba­si­cal­ly the same end.

And now, last night, they, un­sur­pris­ing­ly in ret­ro­spect, merged. [damn lot­ta com­mas] So I guess this is my ver­sion of the on­to­log­i­cal ar­gu­ment. It ends with God = Nothing, which is rather sur­pris­ing.

Assume:
x = some­thing
y = noth­ing
z = God

If y ⊆ x ex­ists, where y is a sub­set of x, and z ⊆ x ex­ists, where z is a sub­set of x, then y = z.

Postulates†:

  1. Is y a sub­set of x?
    • If x is the set of all that ex­ists then y ex­ists. Ergo, y is a sub­set of x.
  2. Are y and x op­po­sites?
    • At first blush it seems so, but if y were not a sub­set of x then y would not ex­ist. [i usu­al­ly start bog­gling at this point.]

Proof†:
If y DNE then there would be no con­cept of y.
There is a con­cept of y. Mere dis­cus­sion of y proves this.
Therefore, y ex­ists.
If z DNE then there would be no con­cept of z.
There is a con­cept of z. Mere dis­cus­sion of z proves this.
Therefore, z ex­ists.
If y ex­ists and z ex­ists and they are both sub­sets of x, then y equals z.

Fallacies†:
I am equat­ing the con­cep­tu­al with the fac­tu­al. I have ap­par­ent­ly al­so de­cid­ed that every­thing in the set of x is mu­tu­al­ly ex­clu­sive to every­thing else. So it ap­pears that every­thing is per­mit­ted. So lets do what­ev­er we want.

3 thoughts on “Adam’s Nonsensical Ontological Argument

  1. you make my art school haven’t-taken-a-math-class-in-10-years brain hurt. I don’t even know what that sym­bol means.

  2. The one thing that I don’t quite get here. x and y both de­pend on each oth­er. Without the one you can­not have a con­cept of the oth­er. I’m not sure that you can ar­gue that that they are sub­sets of each oth­er. The oth­er thing that gets me here is that it seems like by this log­ic god is finite be­cause he/​she/​it ex­ists. Ergo ex­is­tance is greater than god, since god is a sub­set of of ex­is­tance.

    By the way I was read­ing some­thing along the­se lines via slash­dot. You might en­joy the sto­ry if you haven’t read it Adam, it’s by I. Asimov:

Comments are closed.