>>>BUT someone somewhere MUST have "thought" up the Original
>Idea....
>Agreed.
>But someone somewhere, like ATLian said somewhere above, also
>"thought" up the idea of elves, fairies and the likes.
like i have said to Atlian,the Perfectness of God brings about a difference between Him and the elves...
>Rene is popularly loved because of the complexity derived from
>his simple but true statement:
>The fact that WE have the ability to think means that we
>exist. Its a one way statement BTW; it doesn't work
>backwards.
>
>
http://www.glpics.com/briansbar/StewieCKsm.gif
Actually some philosophers have worked the idea over backwards and said "I am therefore i think".
Am plagiarising from wikipedia here....
quote:
"I am, therefore I think"
Source: Atlas Shrugged
The axiom "Existence exists" affirms that there is something that exists. This is held to be axiomatic on the account that anyone who denies it has to accept it. For example, to deny that anything exists requires the acceptance that the denial itself exists (this is an analogous argument to Descartes Cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am"). That one is able to recognize that something exists leads to the axiom of Consciousness. The axiom of Consciousness affirms that consciousness exists, with consciousness "being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." If one is able to perceive that existence exists, then consciousness must exist. Important in the sequence of this reasoning is that existence is not contingent upon consciousness. Existence does not exist because one is conscious of existence, but rather, one becomes conscious of existence because something exists.
another plagiarism from the net........
"
However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years"
I agree with this....ontological arguments do sound very fallacious,they sound wrong even before debating..but philosophers have always wondered where the error is....