Other versions of this have been given, but one that is closer to Thomistic ideas would be something like:
If God exists, then there is a definition that provides positive information that the thing defined exists.
But definitions cannot provide such information.
Therefore, God does not exist.
The consequence follows from the Platonic-Anselmian-Thomistic idea that God exists by nature or in virtue of what he is along with the idea that definition is the statement of what something is.
The argument has many precedents- it can even be read as a commentary or elaboration of Kant’s idea that existence is not a real predicate, sc. that whether something exists or not is not a piece of information that can be conveyed by an account of what it is. In this way we mihgt be able to draw a more direct line between the ontological argument (or, as here, an anti-ontological…
View original post 301 more words