This argument, and the whole of argument based apologetics, bears an uncanny resemblance to a kid failing to let go of the belief in Santa, and throwing a tantrum.

I know that's not an original comment. But it's jarring and painful to me to see grown adults using these festering word games to try and pretend magic and ridiculous stories are real, despite unrelenting evidence to the contrary.

I understand why they do it. I just wanted to say how it looks from the outside.

My contribution:

Ontological Argument Wrote:Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.

Logically possible, yes.

Quote:Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

These are non-sequiturs.

Quote:Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Yes.

Quote:Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

No because "if God exists in all worlds then he exists in our world" proves nothing.

Quote:Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

This is redundant.

I agree. 2 and 3 are a total joke.

Scientists, in all their accumulated wisdom, do not know what happened before a certain point. Anyone claiming to know, based on a handful of dumbass statements, is having a fucking giraffe. Do you know how that arrogant that is, more than anything else?

(June 21, 2016 at 4:14 am)robvalue Wrote: I agree. 2 and 3 are a total joke.

Scientists, in all their accumulated wisdom, do not know what happened before a certain point. Anyone claiming to know, based on a handful of dumbass statements, is having a fucking giraffe. Do you know how that arrogant that is, more than anything else?

2 is just simply true (as true as "all bachelors are unmarried"), and 3 is based on the argument that the maximally great being, as defined by Plantinga, is possibly necessary. Again, under modal logic, all entities that are necessary must exist if it is possible for them to exist. That's just how the logic goes.

Well, for point 2, what is a world? It's an obvious conflation of earth and universe, just as the primitive religions began with.

He's probably talking about parallel universes or some crap like that. But normally God isn't even in any of these universes, he's outside it or some bollocks, so this really is a load of nonsense.

It could be possible that X exists, in theory, if a suitable environment Y exists; yet such a suitable environment may not possibly exist. More word games.

Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great Woo' exists.

Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great Woo exists, then a maximally great psychiatrist exists in some possible ward.

Premise 3: If a maximally great psychiatrist exists in some possible ward, then you may exist in a very possible Psychiatry Ward.

Premise 4: If a maximally great psychiatrist exists in every possible ward, then you may exist in an actual Psychiatry Ward.

Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great Woo will exist in an actual Psychiatry Ward.

Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great straight jacket exists

Conclusion: Therefore padded cells exist.

(June 21, 2016 at 4:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, for point 2, what is a world? It's an obvious conflation of earth and universe, just as the primitive religions began with.

He's probably talking about parallel universes or some crap like that. But normally God isn't even in any of these universes, he's outside it or some bollocks, so this really is a load of nonsense.

It could be possible that X exists, in theory, if a suitable environment Y exists; yet such a suitable environment may not possibly exist. More word games.

In this kind of logic, possible worlds is not the same as parallel worlds. In layman's terms, existing in a possible world means "possibly existing".

Speaking as a mathematician, if greatness is not defined on a compact space, there may not be a greatest even in principle.

In the real world (outside of Craigs skull) "maximally great" is limited to biological parameters. Hence today we have elephants and large whales. Outside of our biosphere no other beings large or small have been found. An elephants turds are larger than Craigs brain and provide way more sustenance. Ask any dung beetle.

(June 21, 2016 at 6:09 am)Alex K Wrote: Speaking as a mathematician, if greatness is not defined on a compact space, there may not be a greatest even in principle.

Also speaking as a mathematician, Craig is an ignorant bullshitting cretin swapping in bogus sophistry for substance.