The supporting argument illicitly conflates being a member of a category in the creaturely sense with being categorizable at all, which Scotus identified as the equivocation underlying radical apophatic theology.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Equivocation(Lewis diagnoses the ontological argument as equivocating on 'a being than which nothing greater can be conceived is possible'.): A fallacy in which a key term or phrase is used in two different senses within the same argument, making an invalid inference appear valid.
Scotus(The philosopher whose reasoning is being analyzed): A medieval philosopher (John Duns Scotus, 1266-1308) known for his detailed logical arguments about God, free will, and how things exist.
apophatic theology(Tradition influencing Marion's theory): The theological approach holding that God cannot be accurately conceived of or described in positive terms
creaturely sense(as a way of describing how things exist as creatures): Relating to created beings or things that exist as part of creation. In this context, it means the way things belong to categories as actual, created entities in the world.

Based on where you are in your exploration