Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it.

It has been refuted. If you want to open another thread on the subject, we can discuss.

But here's the interesting thing, Plantinga himself said the following about his own argument:

“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

Why do you place more confidence in the argument than Plantinga himself?

Basically what Plantinga is saying here is, "Since I already believe in 'God' for other reasons, my version of the Ontological argument, despite the fact that the premises don't support the conclusion, reinforces my already existing belief."

Not impressed...

"It has been refuted"? Not impressed...

You also quoted Plantinga (from The Nature of Necessity). Did you read his work, or what he was speaking in context of?

The chapter in which he made the claim ("Eight. Final Objections and Reflections") discussed various objections to the Ontological Argument. And the reason he made such a claim was because of the open-ended nature of one of the premises that was being challenged. Which premise this is depends on the variant of the argument in question. But the question is, simply "Is a maximally great being coherent?"

The argument doesn't prove as much. It doesn't even try to.

But if you can prove a MGB is incoherent, you can defeat the argument. And if you have reason to believe an MGB is incoherent, you have reason to reject the conclusion. But if you have reasons for neither, then the argument goes through.

The salient point here is not to simply copypasta quotes and make up claims like "It has been refuted". Know what it is you are talking about. If you are still convinced you can refute the ontological argument by showing the concept of a MGB incoherent, and you are sure of it, like 100%, I'll start a thread and we can have a discussion.

---

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it.

That's an interesting belief you have there. Apparently you think that one should accept as true any argument which no one has been able to refute even if one does not understand it himself. I don't subscribe to this methodology of yours for determining which beliefs to adopt. Then again I am obviously more fussy about what beliefs I will consciously endorse than you.

I hope by now someone has called you on your concept of atheism. It is just a word and like every other word in the English language has a multitude of accepted uses. People who believe your god positively does not exist use it. People who you would call agnostic use it to indicate that in the absence of sufficient evidence they do not hold a belief in gods. People who find the very concept of 'god' incomprehensible use it. Even people who just don't give a crap one way or the other may use it. You may not like that but your displeasure doesn't make much difference here.

That's an interesting case of reading comprehension deficiency you have there.

Nobody said you had to accept it. Pending your inability to understand it, you must consider it "possible evidence", not "evidence". A view more in line with agnosticism towards the truth of a claim, pending your understanding of the claim and the evidence for and against it.

I'm glad you don't subscribe to that methodology, and I hope you subscribe to a more rigorous reading and thinking process however.