Ontology

Denyse O’Leary – I call her D’OhLeary for short – quotes John Templeton making the ontological argument for God:

Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?

But this is an awful argument, and especially badly stated here. Let’s try something:

Would it not be strange of a universe without Japanese tentacle sex monsters accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with Japanese tentacle sex monsters?

Or in a more classical form:

Would it not be strange of a universe without a horse for everyone to ride accidentally created people who are obsessed with having a horse to ride.

You more frequently see this expressed as: “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

D’OhLeary ponders:

Some of wouldn’t [sic] recognize that Templeton Foundation [sic] today. Curious to know what has changed.

Perhaps they watched Firefly.

Comments

  1. #1 rturpin
    December 31, 2010

    Well… that’s not really the ontological argument. More like some kind of deontological argument. The ontological argument is that there has to be at least one necessary being, because every contingent causal chain would infinitely regress without that.

    But they’re all pretty silly.

  2. #2 J-Dog
    January 1, 2011

    That’s just Denyse being Denyse… Dumb and Dumber all rolled into one disgustingly dense package. Fortunately, she is (or claims to be) Canadien, so the USA is not responsible for ALL the evils of the world. USA! USA!

  3. #3 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2011

    D’OhLeary ponders:

    Some of wouldn’t [sic] recognize that Templeton Foundation [sic] today. Curious to know what has changed.

    I tried pondering that, and my brain hurts. What the hell does it mean?

Current ye@r *