A large portion of the arguments for God's presence depend on evidence of one or more observational facts. For instance, the "fine-tuning" variation of the Intelligent Design Argument relies on upon exact proof of an intelligent designer; more specifically, on to the empirical case …show more content…
Often times one can’t use calculated cases to rationalize existential claims when trying to prove something that I need to. It wouldn’t be enough to just think about the concept of spinster. I have to go out into the world and lead some kind of experimental examination utilizing my faculties. In a like manner, if one needed to prove that spinsters don't exist, one should do likewise using its own definition. mb
However, be that as it may, there is one class of special cases that one can demonstrate certain negative existential claims just by pondering the definition of it. In this way, for instance, we can verify that there are no four sided triangles on the planet, without going out and looking under each stone to see whether there is a triangle under it. One can achieve this by counseling the definition and seeing that it is self-opposing. In this manner, the very ideas suggest that there exist no elements that are both a triangle and has four sides.
The ontological argument, then, is extraordinary among such arguments in that it implies to set up the genuine presence of some substance. In reality, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much an inconsistency to assume that God doesn't exist as it is to assume that there are four sided triangles or a male