(December 15, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Jenny A Wrote:[*](December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: Actually it is a little technical because it relies on modal logic concepts like possibility and necessity, as well as the S5 axiom.[*]
Here are the two definitions Plantinga starts with
[*]A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
[*]A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.
That's just where I see the problem. Omnipotent contains an internal set of contradictions. Could an omnipotent being create something larger than it can lift or conceive of something more complicated than it could grasp? Given the lack of objective standards for morality other than what such a being decrees, what would perfect morality be? It's easy to imagine societies (let alone worlds) in which something is morally perfect which we would not consider morally perfect in this western society that you and I live in.
Nothing is maximally excellent in every world I can imagine (maybe you have a lessor imagination?) and I cannot begin to claim to imagine every possible world. Do you think anyone can?
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: Given these two definitions, the argument is constructed:
1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.
[*]
Again, it is not. Can the maximally great think greater thoughts than it can understand? Or create heavier objects than it can lift? Or be greater at creating than it is at destroying? Maximally great is a contradiction.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: 2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
[*]
But 1 fails.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: 3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
[*]
But there is no such logically possible world. See above. A thing cannot be both stronger and weaker than itself.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: 4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.
[*]
No. Easy to say, but not true. An infinite number of logically possible worlds include only one singular type of being in which case none would be maximally great. Instead all would be equally great and deficient by any standard whatsoever. Imagine a world of all 1s are all clones.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: 5. Therefore, a maximally great being (that is, God) exists in every logically possible world.
[*]
See above. The definition of maximally great is logically inconsistent unless it means a finite level that many might achieve in which case it doesn't mean a single god or even a god at all. Further, what might exist and what does exist are not the same thing.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: From a formal-logical analysis, everything is consistent. There aren't any "holes" in the argument.
[*]
see above.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: Instead, most atheists who have a problem with it question P4 because it reliexs on the S5 modal axiom. Which, oddly enough, is something atheist philosophers are quite comfortable with outside this context.
[*]
If 4 relies on 5, then a premise or argument relies on the conclusion. That would be a big logical problem.
The idea that omnipotent contains a contradiction is a canard introduced by uneducated youtube atheists, the bane of intelligent discussion everywhere. The Westboro Baptist Church of Atheism. Omnipotence does not include logical contradictions. The moment you ask an omnipotent being to do something logically incoherent, whatever the answer is becomes incoherent, because you've failed to preserve logical structure in your concepts. So, minimally to have meaningful discussions, we constrain omnipotence to that which is logically possible. There's nothing contradictory there.
Likewise with perfect morality, the incoherence you notice is illusory. Professional atheistic philosophers don't really quibble on these issues. What you might imagine as morally perfect in another world different from ours would be a feature of your imagination, your moral intuition. Or perhaps the moral intuition of peoples and societies in that other world. They could be mistaken, just as we could be mistaken. None of this rules out the possibility of moral perfection.
And third, the discussion of possible worlds presumes possible worlds semantics, formalized in a system of modal logic developed first by David Lewis in the 60s or 70s that is almost universally accepted today. (youtube animated presentation). So what you should be asking is not whether something can be maximally excellent in every world you imagine, but whether it's possible for something to be maximally excellent in every possible world.
So which of your objections survive now? Refine your objections and get back to me.
(December 15, 2015 at 7:52 pm)athrock Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote: Actually it is a little technical because it relies on modal logic concepts like possibility and necessity, as well as the S5 axiom.[*]
Here are the two definitions Plantinga starts with
[*]A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
[*]A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.
Given these two definitions, the argument is constructed:
1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.
2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being (that is, God) exists in every logically possible world.
From a formal-logical analysis, everything is consistent. There aren't any "holes" in the argument.
Instead, most atheists who have a problem with it question P4 because it reliexs on the S5 modal axiom. Which, oddly enough, is something atheist philosophers are quite comfortable with outside this context.
If Plantinga has reformulated the argument, it's worth another look. Where can I read a discussion of this online?
Thanks.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Delicate Wrote: [*][*]
^ This is the typical response you'll see from atheists who are uneducated and uninformed on issues like this.
There's a fear of anything that might discredit their religion, and even if they can't find anything wrong with it, they must repudiate it. They are not intellectually competent enough to refute it with reason or evidence, and thus, out of their fear and paranoia, resort to name-calling, emotional appeals, and empty rhetoric.
This is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt.
[*]
I'll be the first to admit that a lot of serious philosophy is beyond my skillset (and I get bored), but that doesn't prevent me from trying to pull the curtains back as far as I can.
That's actually the reason I started this thread in the first place...to increase my understanding through dialogue.
Not everyone has the...um...temperament for discussions like this, and they are threatened by something they do not understand which appears to contradict what they want to believe.
They aren't alone, of course. Believers do the same thing when confronted with science that is beyond them.
(December 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Well, it's all shits 'n' giggles, until someone giggles 'n' shits - all over an atheist forum.[*]
[*]
Forgive me, Stimbo, but I see that your name is in red and that you are an administrator, so I must ask:
Is it a good thing or a bad thing if one of this forum's functions is that it becomes a sort of online learning center for people who want to go deeper with subjects like this?
Believers go to Sunday School to learn more about what they believe; it seems that online forums have become the classrooms of non-believers.
Do you agree?
(December 15, 2015 at 7:48 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Why, when the whole point of parody is to highlight the inadequacies in the arguments?[*]
[*]
That's fine unless folks are merely memorizing the punch lines without understanding what makes the jokes work.
Would YOU be persuaded to give up your (non)beliefs by mockery?
So, why would atheists expect to make any serious in-roads into theism without making genuinely solid arguments?
