The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Disagreeable]

You've got me, plantingas modal ontological argument doesn't exist.  Damn, almost had you.

LOL Come on man! Why can't you quote it here so we can comment?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Omnipotence, to plantinga, is the ability to do anything that is possible.  Similarly, his definition of omniscience is knowing everything that can be known.  Thus, in plantingas view, there are things that gods cant do or know.

It's not clear why being able to do any possible thing would make it impossible to know any thing that could be known, or vv.

Could an omnipotent being choose to forget a thing that could be possibly known? If It does, It is not omniscient. If It can’t, It is not omnipotent. 

Even under Plantinga’s somewhat ad hoc definitions, this is problematic.

Boru

Edit: it occurs to me that if I am allowed to make up my own definitions, I could construct a ‘successful’ argument that chalk is cheese.

[Disagreeable]

And even when we have a valid argument it might not be sound.

[The Grand Nudger]

In plantingas formulation there are, conceivably, all sorts of things a god can't do or can't know. I understand that in your (broadly..our) conception of omniscience and omnipotence any failure in any of these things would seem disqualifying - but that is a disagreement over definitions and not a logical fallacy - as you seem to have hit on.

It is actually is pretty easy to come up with a (so-called?) successful argument, especially with your own definitions though you do need a bit more than that. The fact that christianity has broadly failed..and for so long, and that the one it has cobbled together doesn't reflect the common sense use of terms or even the beliefs of the christian body is a sign of christian moral and intellectual decay more than anything else.

[Disagreeable]

It is actually is pretty easy to come up with a (so-called?) successful argument

Prove it!

[Sheldon]

In plantingas formulation there are, conceivably, all sorts of things a god can't do or can't know.  I understand that in your (broadly..our) conception of omniscience and omnipotence any failure in any of these things would seem disqualifying - but that is a disagreement over definitions and not a logical fallacy - as you seem to have hit on.

It is actually is pretty easy to come up with a (so-called?) successful argument, especially with your own definitions though you do need a bit more than that.  The fact that christianity has broadly failed..and for so long, and that the one it has cobbled together doesn't reflect the common sense use of terms or even the beliefs of the christian body is a sign of christian moral and intellectual decay more than anything else.

While I broadly agree, is decay the right word here, mightn't we say moral "evolution"? I realise of course if you start with the notion the morality offered is perfect, then yes decay might be the right word, but that surely is subjective. Personally I'd take the morality of 21st century democracies over that of patriarchal Bedouin societies, but this is also subjective. 

Plantinga argues that an entity possesses maximal excellence if, and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This is interesting for a couple of reasons, as again morally perfect would firstly be subjective, and secondly its existence does not reflect objective reality, Epicurus argued effectively against the existence of a such a deity centuries before humans created the Christian religion. 

I am of course dubious that you can define or argue something into existence. Suppose we use his argument but don't posit a deity, but a different entity like a powerful wizard, or even a perfectly cruel or evil entity, does the argument lose anything?

[Silver]

You must mean the proof that a successful argument for god exists - and I again suggest you use the internet I know you have.

Why can't you post it here for us to discuss it?

Platinga, and objections

[The Grand Nudger]

While I broadly agree, is decay the right word here, mightn't we say moral "evolution"? I realise of course if you start with the notion the morality offered is perfect, then yes decay might be the right word, but that surely is subjective. Personally I'd take the morality of 21st century democracies over that of patriarchal Bedouin societies, but this is also subjective.

I'm not making a comment on any moral system they offered perfect or otherwise - but on the decay of christianity as an institution which did, at least once, try to realize a rational christianity.  It is difficult to look at the christian field today and think "here are people very concerned about whether their faith can be logically argued".

Plantinga argues that an entity possesses maximal excellence if, and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This is interesting for a couple of reasons, as again morally perfect would firstly be subjective, and secondly its existence does not reflect objective reality, Epicurus argued effectively against the existence of a such a deity centuries before humans created the Christian religion. 

It would be much easier to demonstrate a subjectively maximally great whatsit of whatever, and the argument would ofc work the exact same way if we were to replace the two contentions for each other.   

I am of course dubious that you can define or argue something into existence. Suppose we use his argument but don't posit a deity, but a different entity like a powerful wizard, or even a perfectly cruel or evil entity, does the argument lose anything?

As am I.  

The argument works the same way for all mechanically equivalent objects - as all logical arguments do (or are believed to do....).   The key quality at least with respect to how the argument works is not "godness" - though I'm sure a committed nutball would flail around to argue otherwise.  This type of argument works on necessity in possible worlds semantics.  So..if the powerful wizard is possibly necessary - sure.

This is probably why the argument and in fact all arguments of it's kind lend themselves so well to reductions to the absurd.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or, put shortly, you can't argue gods into existence. Great, we all knew that already.

There also seems to be a GIGO issue happening as well, definitionally.

[Paleophyte]

There are a few problems with Plantinga's MOA. The argument is logically valid but not necessarily sound. The conclusions follow from the premises but the initial premise can't be demonstrated. It's troublesome to demonstrate that a "maximally great being" is possible, or even conceivable. That's further confounded if you view "greatness" as a value judgment. At the end of the day, that leaves us at "If god exists then god exists."

I also take exception to Plantinga's use of the term "God". Christianity is the only religion that refers to their deity in this way, so it's pretty clear that is Who is being discussed, whereas the MOA only gets you as far as a deistic god.