[Essay] Descartes' Proof for God

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Is there still any value to analysing the flow of this particular arguement, and considering the potential significance of the portions of it that are valid, whether purposeful or incidental?

?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The "meta-discussion" is critical, because the premise to the discussion you wanted rests on whether or not faulty logic can still be useful. I think it can be very useful to examine faulty logic. However, faulty logic isn't useful as far as I can tell.

There you go.