This discussion belongs on my philosophy site, but since I’ve just spun up, I’ll do it here for now.
Heaviside brings up a good point. The technology of the ontological argument has advanced significantly since its first formulation, and modern formulations mostly do not rely on moral valence – ens realissimum.
Thus my previous post really refuted good-based ontological arguments, but not all of them.
My initial answer was that the Kantian epistemological firewall demolishes the others. But I should know better. I constructed the bridge through the firewall, via the unintelligibility backdoor.
In that proof, I reestablished Descartes’ cogito ergo sum. In the process, more concepts get ported over:
I. A number – 1.
II. Existence and being.
III. Subject and verb
This is a minimal list, but epistemologically quite dangerous. We have a number of arbitrary human concepts crossing the firewall to synthetic verification as components of reality.
Well, not exactly. But the alternative statement is unintelligible nonsense, so effectively speaking, close enough.
This actually makes the ontological argument prima facie viable again. I will have to think deeply on it at some later date. Thanks Heaviside.