(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:
The Ontological Argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Thoughts?
1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in any possible world.
4. If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.
So, using Plantinga's logic, it is as easy to prove that god doesn't exist as that he does. Any argument that proves both X and not-X is worthless. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.
An argument so easily slam-dunk refuted shouldn't have any standing or fame. But this is a famous argument because the Christians have no better arguments. Since they have no good arguments, they have to field trash like this.
