| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| **Note:** From the above – as well as from various other arguments against the //ontological argument//((For an overview, see //Toni Vogel Carey:// [[https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/The_Ontological_Argument_and_the_Sin_of_Hubris|The Ontological Argument and the Sin of Hubris]] (Philosophy Now, 2005).)) – no conclusion can be drawn that //refutes// God’s existence. It follows only that this argument – at least in this form – is //not a valid proof// of God’s existence. See also: <span maniculus>[[relevancy:fallacy-fallacy|Fallacy-fallacy]]</span>. | **Note:** From the above – as well as from various other arguments against the //ontological argument//((For an overview, see //Toni Vogel Carey:// [[https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/The_Ontological_Argument_and_the_Sin_of_Hubris|The Ontological Argument and the Sin of Hubris]] (Philosophy Now, 2005).)) – no conclusion can be drawn that //refutes// God’s existence. It follows only that this argument – at least in this form – is //not a valid proof// of God’s existence. See also: <span maniculus>[[relevance:fallacy-fallacy|Fallacy-fallacy]]</span>. |
