"...and Consciously So in the Revision."

[Kalessin]

Estel, just a small point, but you know how easily I am diverted by philosophical puzzles [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ...

It has been said that there have been three to five arguments in favor of God’s existence ... (including the ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness ... The ontological proof is a flawed logical axiom only to those who hold a philosophy which is more or less Aristotelian (like St. Thomas Aquinas) but valid to Platonists (like Anselm or Descartes). The debate regarding this ‘proof’ is still ongoing.

I can't help feeling that the classic ontological argument framed initially, I believe, by Anselm, is logically flawed, involving as it does a kind of circular trick of language. As a component of the design argument, in the sense that the formation of any 'infinity' concept implies a consciousness (or reality) formed or informed by the divine, I agree it can be seen as complementary.

Both the Platonic Theory of Forms and the Cartesian circle have been hugely influential on Christianity and western culture, yet I do not think they form an (unintentional) trilogy with the ontological argument, since they represent a process of rigourous philosophical enquiry, rather than the 'fait-accompli' of Anselm. And Plato takes you more to a realm of absolute truth (or essence) than something necessarily mystical or divine.

I am just going to insert the word "Tolkien" here, for obvious reasons [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. My previous post is more relevant!

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin