(December 24, 2015 at 1:28 am)wiploc Wrote:(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.
Nice counterargument. Once again, the argument rests on whether Premise 1 is true or not.
Really, the whole ontological argument thingy is pointless if they can't even establish the possibility of such being existing.
