The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Chad, the problem with Plantinga's ontology is that it tries to use a non-sequitor mathematical principle of probability.

If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm seeing it as. It's been a long time since I've been in any school, and my career never called for much math application, so perhaps I may have worded it wrong. Anyway, I think it's a non-sequitor mashup of probability with scientific possibility.

I gazed at Plantinga's ontology for the first time, and the first thing I said was "WTF, nobody would try and say that the possibility of pink nicorns roaming a remote planet somewhere in our galaxy makes it a certain truth, so he can't really be saying that of any Earth deity". I thought about it for hours, and then it hit me that he must be suggesting (deviously, as a hidden diversion from the possibility logic which he had established in his first ontology statement) the logic which is used in a random-sample probability solution. Either that or he presumes the universe is infinite (which is false), or the multiverse (not proven, therefore should not be presumed) is infinite (probably false anyway). I can't see how such a contextual difference between scientific possibility and mathematical probability can be easily confused, therefore I believe Plantinga has been more than devious in his fallacious argument.

As noted by Brian, Plantinga's ontology is crap.