Evidence of God's Failure
New Testament critic TG Baker has written a logical proof which explains the exact problem I have with the ontological argument for God's existence and why it is inadequate as an argument for the existence of God. The problem with the ontological argument, I feel, is exactly like Baker describes when he states, "such statement as the ontological argument can only demonstrate the validity of its rationality and not the actuality of its claim." Even if the argument is logically sound--it still lacks empirical knowledge to validate the logic. This is why I have always been suspicious of the ontological argument. Baker's claim, as follows, focuses on "capability" rather than omnipotence: 1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q). 3 )x necessarily would not allow q 4) p-->; not q 5) It