Ontological Arguments (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 20:50 (4980 days ago)

I have found exactly what it is about David's, Adler's, and many other writers (Such as Graham Dunstan Martin) that is incompatible with my Epistemology. -I had heard of the original "Ontological Argument" before and dismissed it as easily as many other people had, but in stumbling across THIS article:-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/-I came to the sudden realization on what exactly it was that was incompatible. -I still can't accept these kinds of arguments. They try to make something from nothing... but I'm looking for challengers here that would be willing to do any one of these things:-1. Demonstrate something in my life that I regularly use that is an ontological-type argument... its possible that I have something like this in use somewhere in my framework. -2. Demonstrate why you think these kinds of arguments are valid; why should we accept them. Or more directly, "Why should I alter my epistemology in order to accommodate them?"-Or any other criterion that you think might persuade me. I'm trying to find a chink in the armor of materialism here... why is materialism wrong?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"