Classes and Glasses

It's that time again. I have survived six weeks of philosophy and government classes, turned-in and received my first wave of assignments, and now I am left in my bedroom correcting them. Though the grades were exciting, somehow this doesn't feel like the life I sign-up for.

My Ethics professor is one of a kind, and I don't mean a corny poker-line, he is one of a kind. I have never seen a person continually go out of his way to embarrass a student and protract the tenant til the end of class. I am not saying the student was innocent, but such dedication must be duly noted. I remember him speaking on a principle of Aristotle and a student began to talk. After respectfully hearing him through, the professor asked, "I am sorry, but what did that have to do with what I'm saying?" the student replied, "nothing." There is hope for the community college, at least the student understood the sporadicity of his comment. But as time continues I have been given opportunities I would not have had. On several occasions I was the only one, or one of only a few, that stood against popular opinion; Arguing in defense that Sex Requires Commitment, that Morality requires Religion, and that Social Moral Relativity is untenable. In a way, I have seen how it often takes one voice to say, "no," for a whole society to say, "what?" and then give their full attention.

My Introduction to Philosophy Professor gives Philosophy it's mystique. If a fifty year old man can walk into class with pink jeans, equally pink shirt, gray hair that billows about his shoulders with every step and nod, and has reverted to pegging his students with candy for every question ask, one could only question his sanity. Has decades of teaching community college cracked his mind? As I often wonder at this, he flippantly throws practical remarks that only confuses and cracks the minds of his students. Though he is a philosopher of the people showing disgust concerning modern socio-trends, it's entertaining to see how every philosophical concept can be reduced to either sex, drugs, or alcohol - I guess it reflects the common currency of modern society.

Then there is my Introduction to American Government Professor, and she is no exception. I believe it is worth attending her class just to see what she will wear. Today her wardrobe featured high-heeled, open toe boots, blue jeans, a red and white square-print shirt (or skirt. It's one of those "too short to be a skirt and too long to be a shirt"), a black over sweatshirt, and, to top off the menagerie, a brown broad-brimmed hat that featured a feather from one side - and yes she wore it inside class. But somehow when she teaches it's enjoyable. Maybe it's the way she talks, like old friends sitting for a conversation. She enjoys every bit of it as a pass-time and often forgets that there are students listening.

Now the sun is setting and I am still at my computer correcting. Through the blinds I see the last rays of sunshine and see that rain is on its way. Life is exciting and wonderful and unpredictable, it isn't the life I signed up for - But for that I am thankful.

Men Can't Fly - Freewill and Predestination

"A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational." - St. Aquinas

Men can't fly. For some of you this news comes with a bit of unsavory repetition as from a college professor trying to re-illustrate another thing you “can't” do. For others it comes as a challenge, to stand up to that old-witted, somewhat balding professor and contradict his beliefs that mere words will eternally align your actions to his will. But I believe one idea never darted past your sight, an idea that may have slipped your rationality: “If men can't fly, then men can't do anything else.”

In the eternally polemical discourse on Christian Theology, free-will and predestination has come full tilt again. And it is here, in predestination's artifices to weaken the resolve of the free-will position, that the argument, “since man cannot fly, it only follows that man does not have complete free-will” has been fashioned. And it is here that I believe any systematic approach to test this claim will falter at the presuppositional level.

As with all claims, they are packaged with presuppositions and I believe it is necessary to expand on this point. If I claim, “Bob is at Save-Mart” I am presupposing that “Bob is not at Bel-Air” or, in fact, Bob is at no other place but Save-Mart because man is limited to one place at one time. We could further modify the statement to be more specific, “Bob is at the Save-Mart off of 1234 Main Street and 0987 Central Avenue.” With only one Save-Mart being on the corner of Main St. and Central Ave, we know exactly where Bob is and know exactly where Bob is not (ie. At anywhere else in general or at any other Save-Mart in particular). When predestination claims, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will,” we have to do the same - Ask what the claim's presupposes and test if the answer follows.

So, what is the presuppositions to the claim, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will?” Theoretically, there are limitless presuppositions to any claim, however, there is one that I would have us concern our attention with. The presupposition of this claim is “Man cannot do something contrary to his nature.” In other words, this predestination claim is an inferential statement that draws from the intrinsic limitations of mankind through their “created nature.” Meaning, mankind, by nature, could never will himself to fly. This is a clear example of mankind's physical limitations, but does this statement concern itself with the nonphysical virtue we call will? Does this statement create a dispute about how free man's will is, or does it simply verify a well known fact, “that man can't fly?”

The only exception I know to this presupposition – that the limits of nature creates limits of free-will – is God Himself. So the answer to this dilemma inextricably resides in another question. Do all things that are limited in their nature have limited-Freewill? Depending on your theological and philosophical stand-point, most agree that God cannot act against the laws of logic (ie. Creating a square triangle) or act against His own nature of perfections and virtues (i.e. He cannot be an unjust judge). Thus the case is made that there is a contradiction in predestination's claim. If God has free-will yet is constrained by His nature, then how is it that mankind has limited free-will because he is constrained by his nature?

To address this contradiction, we are left with two horns. The first horn would say, “it follows that mankind, just as God, has limited free-will because both are limited by their nature” This horn nullifies the entire argument of free-will because it simply denies the existence of free-will at all levels. If accepted, this claim would confer a “limited free-will” upon God through inference, “that all things which are limited in their nature must have limited-Freewill.”

But I believe another idea exists. Perhaps, it would be best to acknowledge the theory that all things have limits and restrictions because of definition. That infinity could not be anything else than what it is, that perhaps God always was, always is, and always will be because God was never not, and perhaps when God said, “I am who I am” that it meant a bit more than a mystically veiled quote. The other horn is complete free-will in our decisions, and restrictions are no more inherent in mankind than they are in God. That man is supplied in creation, through the rationality of the mind and conviction of the soul, the ability to accept God for who He is and the sacrifice of His son, or to reject those claims and confer the consequences of one's own actions. To me, “it follows that mankind, created in the image or likeness of God, would have the same category of free-will. A free-will limited by their nature, but complete in their ability to choose between a moral good and a moral evil.”

Any claim can be tested, but not all claims endure the suffering. Predestination and the claim “all men cannot fly, thus man has only limited free-will,” are one of those statements that cannot endure. The first refutation is to take the claim to its utmost ramification – that all things limited have limited free-will. This cannot be the answer because it creates a God that is subjected, or lower than, His own being, creating a variation of euthyphro's dilemma. Thus it is in the latter that the answer is found. That God, creating man in His own image, created mankind with the same responsibility of action. For he who does, is he who receives.

Ron Paul and Abortion

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul
[My Response to above Source follows below:]

A couple of weeks ago I was debating a friend about Ron Paul. He turned around and said, "I would never vote for Ron Paul because he wants to legalize heroine." His response is very similar to this article because it demonstrates a general lack of knowledge about our government and its operations. As I would be willing to explain Ron Paul's position on Abortion and why this article is wrong in its presuppositions, I must first explain two points: the structure of the United States government and the difference between form and content.

Form and content is a bit more philosophical than I enjoy explaining throught text, but it will demonstrate the severity of what this article is propounding. Picture a blue box filled with teddy bears. You continue to pack these boxes into a truck where you will later take these teddy bears to some children at their homes. But here is the catch. The blue boxes that you use to fill with teddy bears are the same boxes that other people are allowed to use but can fill them with anything they desire - as long as it fits in the box. One day, as you are placing a box of teddy bears into the back of your truck, to your dismay, you find hundreds of other blue boxes but they are filled with gasoline, weapons, fishing rods, and garden hoses. You see the problem. What are the children going to do with all this other stuff? The once child friendly blue boxes filled with teady bears are now the same blue boxes filled with harmfull or useless items.

Now, knowing this "catch" and it's outcome - that anyone can use your boxes and fill them with whatever they can fit into them - you know what you need to do: design a box that fits as tightly around the teddy bear as possible; Only allowing enough room for a teddy bear to fit inside. This, in short, is what every political debate is about - jamming a law into a box that doesn't rightly fit.

Next is our governmental structure. The constitution is our box (our form) that we are able to stuff our government (contents) in, and whatever doesn't fit inside this box should be removed. But to understand why it should be removed, even if a policy has its solidarity in christian principles, could only be explained by the natural universalism of our government. As with our teddy bear boxes being filled with harmful or useless obejcts, we must be proactive in questioning the box for our govnernment. We ask, "How do we operate a government with religious freedom, founded on Christian principles, while protecting citizens from both a minority(tyranny of the powerful) and a majority (tyranny of the populace)?" The proposed answer was the constitution and its proposed legislative process.

With this information, we can address the issue of banning abortion at the Federal Level. The contents of this proposition is agreeable - we want abortion banned. But what is harrowing is the form, or the box, by which it comes. The dissappointments of this box, or form, by which it must be passed are threefold. First, it would give the government another "unnamed power." The Federal Government, constitutionally, is only allowed to prosecute for three crimes: treason, crimes on the high sea, and counterfitting. The reason the U.S. Federal government was restricted leads me to my second point: the constitution was created to allow the least ability for a U.S. Citizen to appear before the powers of our nation to defend for his crime. Instead, the constitution promotes state-side prosecution and that a U.S. citizen should stand before a "jury of peers" for defense. Passing a bill against abortion only provides another avenue, and another reason, for the Federal Government to propound the idea that they are "allowed" to prosecute individual U.S. Citizens for committed crimes. And my third point is that it provides a path for the Federal Government to pass bills that would take the same form as this bill (ie. A bill that can be passed as long has it had sufficient moral imperitive, regardless of human right or "correctness".). This is why Ron Paul has continued to be against a Federal Law for or against abortion - it violates our constitutional form. Now we may ask, "what does he stand for?"

This is where the article had it all wrong, they say he is pro-choice. But let me ask you this, is a canidate that is for repealing Roe v. Wade and pulling all Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood a pro-choice canidate? Can someone be pro-choice yet strive to repeal abortion's single most powerful legal document and strive for pulling their single greatest funding source? I would say not. But again, the question still has not been answered. What does Ron Paul stand for?

Ron Paul stands for upholding both the United States Government process and for upholding the form and content. He believes that the best option is for the states to make the decision. And that decision does have Federal Impact. How? Because states are the only entity in the U.S. Constitution that is allowed to amend the constitution without Federal approval, and the only entity that is currently allowed to prosecute such crime. What he believes is that the unnamed power of birth regulation should be give to the "peers of those who would be punished" and not given to those who represent those people. He believes that those closest to the family should have the power to regulate what goes on in the family.

At this point I will take the time to answer specific questions that were posed in the article.

1) States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder.

Honestly? Yes, states can decriminalize murder, but more specifically they can decriminalize or criminalize abortion. When Benjamin Franklin left liberty hall a woman approached and asked, "Is it a republic?" he replied very wittingly, "If you can keep it." In those five words he summed up the entire power given to those who under the constitution. That A) States can revise the constitution at will and B) that a jury can overturn any law in court.[Please Note - there is a philosophical assumption by what the writer means by "murder." By definition there is no such thing as "permissible murder"]

2) Human Rights Supersede States' Rights; "then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty."

The problem is that the passage of an anti-abortion act would create the ability to pass further laws based on a "human rights" condition. Would you consider the banning of certain foods in the name of "human health" considered a good or bad thing? There are legitamate arguments for both sides. How about banning the number of fast food resturants because people can't handle themselves? There are good arguments for both sides. How about banning certain religions or fire arms in the name of saving lives? There are historical arguements for both sides. Ultimately, if you pass a bill as a "human rights trumps all rights" card you have paved a golden path to a plethora of abuses and unjust laws by both the minorty and the majority.

Not All Cigars Are Cuban

I suppose the less I write the better my point will be. Imagine a glass cage. It has four equal sides, a mesh wire top, and sand on the bottom. Inside there is a mouse wheel with a rat running along the tracks. It is running quite fast for a rat, but there is something particular: it has a red “X” burned into its back. I have just created a scene in four sentences.

The magic in writing isn't all about what you say, but also what you don't say. I never said what color the rat's hair is, the color of the sand, if the room the rat was in is dark or bright, or if a room even existed. However, I bet you instantly created all of those images. For me the room was dark (probably because I am writing in a dark room), the rat had gray fur, and there was an annoying sound of spinning metal – or maybe that's my computer fan. Whatever it is, I didn't write it, I left those images for your mind to create, and it happened.

So often we think what we want to write and then feebly attempt to transpose the exact image into our reader's mind. That's no fun. Stories are best written in open spaces so the mind may wander. If you spend all your time describing only minute details you are defeating yourself and, much more importantly, you are strangling the reader's magic. The ashen colour of the rat's fur, the unnerving darkness of the cellar's laboratory, or how thick, shinny, or sharp the cage's glass is irrelevant to point being made: there is a rat and it has a red x on it's back. Over describing only strangles the mind, and when you strangle the mind the reader falls asleep.

At about this time you are probably wondering about the title. I suppose an explanation is appropriate. “Sit down.” a man said tapping on the desk. A Carnegie Steel foreman was just closing the door, “I heard there was a break in at the shipyard?” “They knew the shipment came.” he turned to grab a cigar out of a wooden box on his desk, “would you like one?”... Remember every cigar is NOT a Cuban cigar, the point isn't the quality of what they are smoking, the point is that something important was stolen by a competitor from Carnegie's shipyard.

The Sun Also Rises: Book Review

"This wine is too good for toast-drinking, my dear. You don't want to mix emotions up with a wine like that. You lose the taste." - Brett

Hemmingway died. If you have read Ernest Hemmingway you will realize the misfortune of his passing, but others will at once find that statement cold and realistic. Every day people die but we never go about speaking of it – like an unnatural secret. It happens so often and so fast we don't believe it will ever happen to us. The book The Sun also Rises is a quaint story about the oh-so-often disillusionment of love and friendship. Following Jake and Brett through the night clubs of Paris and the bull rings of Spain, they move from pleasure to pleasure trying to hide their pain. It happens so often and so fast that they don't believe it would ever happen to them. So I intend to be both cold and realistic when I say, “Hemmingway died.”

Now there is nothing particular that I would say concerning Hemmingway's passing – nothing regarding a rifle or an empty house, neither seizure induced electrical therapy nor depression, but to stir the apparent curiosity about its happening. For the only apparent thing is how apparent it was for me and not for Hemmingway that Hemmingway died.

As a lost generation writer, Hemmingway believed what he heard, wrote what he saw, and lived the life he dared to avoid. The Sun Also Rises details his story of a time of comings and goings quickly faded and lost by a generation that feared to believe. Feared to believe that they walked the back alleys of happiness and combed the desolate wastes of a world gone wrong. Close to the hearts of both Hemmingway and his fictional characters, they walked down the lonely streets called “yesterday” and breath a sigh reassuring themselves that nothing crooked can be straighten for the devil we call “tomorrow.” What is apparent to every reader is that Hemingway died long before his physical suicide.

His life and aspirations were beset with forgetfulness and he made it known in this story: A week spent for a fishing trip far away from home, a night at the bar to sedate the soul of regret, and a vacation to Spain for the festival of the bulls to drown out the noise of a fallen conscience. Wrought by “could-have-been's” and “should-have-not's” this story's moral was an open experience, not a closed idea. Things came and went and the reader was forced to make up his mind. Left to question your own artifices, one begins to wonder how easily one's life could be squandered, and challenges you to have the strength to change it. Sadly, most do not, and for Hemingway he foretold his future.

The main characters illustrate a real sense of the modern soul-train bound for nothing. Brett and Jake, were “matter-of-fact” with both their hearts and minds. Their languages accented the modern man - foul and carefree - and full of despair and inability to survive. Night clubs, the far-fringes of loved called romance, Bull fights, fairs, and drinking ripped and sagged under the weight of their hearts and souls, barely able to keep the characters alive to the end... barely.

I love reading and I love a vast array of authors, but Hemingway still isn't there for me. His stories are cold and realistic, strong and clear, but his passion is always lacking. The experience was mussling and foreboding, and left me with a sombre assurance, “it was a good book, it was a good book.” And that's the difference between a good book and a great book.

On Writing Well by William Zinsser

     The greatest writing book of all time, hands-down, is the Elements of Style by Professor Strunk and E.B. White. The simple articulation, the quaint but powerful phrases, and the rules that seem too short to be correct, has given writers of every generation the simple paths to greatness. But the long standing complaint against the school of brevity is briefness. Their questions and dilemmas bounce short of answers as the reader is left with text that abruptly turns to white space. So where do the readers go? They don't go anywhere. With rule after rule stacking on one another, readers stop looking and the book becomes frustrating. This idea is what inspired the book On Writing Well by Willaim Zinsser. This book expands specifically on the issues, questions, and rules of the brief legend; splicing and cutting more text across that terrifying white space we call doom. If you have the Elements of Style, this book would be an addition worthy of its binding, but if are looking for a book to dive right into with full explanations of simple rules look no further.

A. Delete Clutter

The new age of information is all about adding clutter. You never hear about a missile crashing but prematurely hitting the ground, you never hear about a business losing money but that a business is running at a negative cash-flow position, and further, you never hear about a country declaring war but offering all possible routes of diplomatic negotiations that unfortunately lead to a undesired conflict of opposing interests. You hate it, I hate it, and so does everyone else. The single most despised thing in the world is clutter. You start with a good plan, something perfect. The plan goes through a process of explanations and feather puffing, and before you know it, your plan is wearing several tons more information and piles of goodness that shrouds your perfect idea. Clutter, Clutter, Clutter, in the eyes of a writer is like saying More, More, More, and more is always bad. Don't bet that someone will understand you, hopefully. Hopefully you will spend that time and just state your perfect plan. Don't be a politician, cut out ALL clutter.

B. Be Simplified

Be simplified, don't be simple. There is a difference. Being simplified is about knowing that maple syrup and pinto beans are a bad idea, or that people who sell cow brain tacos to the masses should be arrested and forgotten among the conversations of great dietary achievements. Writing is about knowing what to write and when to stop. No one cares if a man walked to a store because it's bland, says nothing, and, above all, is simple. But someone may be interested if Mother Geronimo had tea with Peter Gilmore in a Hindu Temple. The idea is to be direct in what you are saying and where you are going. Be simplified, NOT simple.

C. An audience of One

Imagine the front cover of a New York Times Best Seller. Imagine the numbers of sold copies printed across the top with golden font and silver trim. Imagine the the literary praise and seeing your book placed along side the shrines of your childhood dream-authors. Now take that idea firmly by the horns and go throw it in the trash – that is not writing. Writers always write for themselves without thinking what the audience wants to hear. Writers are famous not by writing what audiences want to hear, but being able to explain their own ideas so that readers can understand.

D. Cadence

Most people don't believe me when I say there is rhythm in writing. Yes, I am speaking about writing, not poetry. But good poetry is worth reading if you want good cadence. Read poetry, watch for cadence, and your writing will start flowing.

E. Use direct/proper/useful words

“Lord, please help me with the hard things in my life and guide me to make the right choices from day to day,” as you continue in piety, “And please help my friends get their things done and help them over come their problems... and.... and.” Lord have mercy on your soul if you pray like that. There are no grades for a well spoken prayer, but you may succeed at saying nothing. Writing, like speaking, is about nouns and verbs. If you have poor nouns you have poor subjects. If you have poor verbs you have poor actions. And if you attempt to dribble by with auxiliaries alone may God miracle your way to heaven because, He knows, the road to hell is paved with adverbs and adjectives. Don't expect the reader to understand you, use word that mean what you mean, remember to be direct.

F. Unity, Place, Person, Nouns, Verbs, Moods, Tenses, reduces subjects to single sentences

Everyone hates planning, doesn't matter who you are. If you enjoy the face-splitting drudgery it is because you enjoy the end result, and that is why you must remember this rule. When you are writing keep everything matching. Plural nouns stay plural, people and person stay in different sentences, scenes don't jumble out of order and run together, people who are doing something are doing it now, and sad characters don't walk through doors and become happy – unless this is a Norseman bursting through the gates of Valhalla. Plan ahead and keep unity.

G. Introductions and Conclusions

Intro's should be entertaining, closers should be surprising. There is nothing worse for a writer to experience than labouring hours in detailing a thousand facts that would twirl the reader's mind into a high-sky adventure but never see the sun light because a reader isn't willing to endure the first paragraph - or first several pages. Introductions must capture the reader. Use an interesting fact, an odd observation, or perhaps a series of unanswerable incidents, anything that makes the reader say, “Wow, I didn't know that,” or, “What is happening or what will happen next?” the longer you can hold the reader the more willing he will be in enduring your thousand facts – even if they are boring. But there is one last tie: the conclusion. If you force a reader to endure an entire essay, then you better be thinking how you can sweep the reader off of his feet. If not, he will be sweeping your essay to the trash. Hook readers with a shocking fact or good story and end with a surprise that no one saw coming.

H. Practice detailing landscape...

I was once told that the only people who enjoy every moment of a traveler's tale are the travelers. They are the only ones who find wonder in ever step and a piece of God's goodness behind every rock, but people like you and me, when we ask, “Tell me everything about your experience,” only want to know everything that would interest us – be honest. When writing we have to keep this in mind and not bore our readers out of their wits. There is only one way to become better at detailing landscapes; Practice. But there's advice that may help you in the right direction: write the first three things that come to mind. If the mountain range is accented with black ice, a frozen lake, and a misplaced lightening rod, then speak about those things; as I have also been told, a picture is worth a thousand words, but people care less. So don't rabbit trail and attempt to speak about the wonder of every step or God's goodness behind every rock, just speak about the wonderful three steps or the greatest trio of God's beauties.

I. Humour is Serious Business

Humour is about practical truth. The best moments in life are often found around a thanksgiving turkey or a cold night out in the Christmas snow with friends and family reminiscing about times scarcely remembered. You cry together, laugh at each other, fight for trifling matters, but they are always good memories. They are memories of perfect origin, and nothing in life would be enough to barter for something else. Some people call it the simple things in life, and that is what I believe they are. Simple, and almost forgotten... almost. And that is what humour is, simple things almost forgotten, so next time you want to exaggerate a truth to make it “sound funny” remember that life is funny as it is and there is no need to dress it up in some clown outfit – that's just downright wrong and scary.

J. Intention and Quest....

Stories and legends are magical things: Enrapturing readers with failing plots and paper-thin characters, dazzling readers with hackneyed remarks as old as time, and villains that love being …. yes, we haven't got that far. Articulating intentions and quests are as difficult as articulating people – because that is what you are doing. A villain never loves villainy as much as he loves to conquer and pillage and burn in the name of a lost love, no hero has ever brought a tear to the reader who didn't face his deepest tremblings, and nothing was so magical as the hug of a child or nothing so propelling as the death of a friend. The thing to remember is, “The difference between a person and a hero is one more second of hope.” That's all, that's the magic: the undying, the unquestioning, the unrelenting fight that lasted one more second beyond all hope and the one second just before all despair. This is the moonlit realm that quest and intention run rampant, and your job is to find their flag and conquer it.

Kantology: Addressing Kant and the Ontological Argument

"You can learn the easy way or you can learn the hard way, but taking the easy way will become hard and taking the hard way will become easy... Is this Ontological?"

The problem with Kant's assertion is that he never affirms the negative. His argument follows as this: "If I say a triangle exists and I also believe in exactly three connecting angles, I am saying the same thing – a triangle and its property." If I deny one concept I am in contradiction of the other (ie. I can't say I believe in a triangle while not believing in three connecting angles). But, if you deny the triangle in its totality then you can deny both without contradiction. If a triangle does not exist, then the properties of triangles (three connecting angles) do not exist either. Thus denying the existence of God in its totality will have no outside contradictions. So what is the problem? Kant cannot say, "God does not exist."

Kant states that the problem with Anselm's argument is that the affirmation of a deity and then proposing that this deity must exist is similar to the argument of the triangle. If you assume the existence of a triangle it is only logical to assume the existence of three connecting angles. So if God exists, then the rational conclusion is that He must be the greatest imaginable being. That is fallible. But before we travel any further, what does Kant offer to deny Anslem's argument? What idea does he have that does not externally or internally contradict Anslem's presupposition? Nothing. If, for a moment, Kant assumes that God does not exist, and then says "there is no outside argument to contradict that statement." We must say "Of course!" It is only logical to say, "If a triangle does not exist, then there are not three angles." So if God does not exist it only makes sense that He cannot be the greatest imaginable being. Again, the assumption is fallible and you are left with the same paradox... An issue of assumptions.

So why does the Ontological Argument still exists as both an exotic and rare argument if it suffers an apparent paradox? The paradoxes of both Kant and Anslem stand upon different corners - one paradox is not accepted and the other is. Kant's paradox rests upon an attempt to unglue Anslem by a straight-out denial of God (which assumes the non-existence of God - a paradoxical argument, which, of course, Kant understands and thus refuses to use such terms), whereas Anslem begins his paradox with the assumption of the existence of the human intellect (an excepted paradox of the Mind/Body Dichotomy - "the 'I' must exist to deny itself" with no further evidence needed to support the argument). Thus the only arguement Kant may successfully achieve is one of possiblity, "God possibly does not exist."

In response to Kant's refutation, Dr. Alvin Plantinga contends that the Ontolotical Arguement has never been sucessfully refuted because the possibility argument is a way of saying nothing on the topic. If this is true, then why is it that most people shy away from debating it? It's because the greatest threat is itself. The Ontological Argument holds an extremely abstract paradigm. If you are not dealing with a well-informed individual, you will be pointlessly assaulted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn; Stupid and irrelevant at best, but nonetheless, your opponent will still miss the entire point: That God exists.... So that's why I enjoy it. If you understand it, use it. You'll have fun.