(February 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm)IATIA Wrote:(February 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Sounds like BS. I see, from the link, that they have quasi-mathematical proof for it, but it still doesn't make sense to me that something does exist just because it's possible.
The 'math' is not proof, but rather a 'definition of the proof' assuming one accepts the premise in the first place.
Even if one accepts 'modal logic', it still cannot prove god's existence as there is no information to suggest that a god is necessary or even possible.
That's why part of the definition of maximally great is that the being is necessary. This was not stated in the OP argument, but that is something to keep in mind when it comes to Plantinga's argument. Either way, like you said, no information to suggest such a being is possible, partly because the definition of maximally great being still is not clear enough.
