(June 19, 2016 at 10:31 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:(June 19, 2016 at 9:45 am)SteveII Wrote: Veritas_Vincit, your objection to premise 1 seems to indicate you do not understand "possible worlds" semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world
The argument can be summed up as: If you think that it is broadly logically possible that God (the maximally great being most think of when you say God) exists then he does exist.
As Irrational said, it is important to understand the S5 modal logic that if something is even possibly necessary, it is actually necessary. (which would answer Kevin's question about the jump from 2 to 3.)
@Esquilax, one of your objections to maximally great being is that something "slightly more great" can be imagined makes no sense. What could be greater than an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessary being? If you could logically conceive of anything greater, then that would be God. Your parody about the greatest conceivable girlfriend illustrates nothing. 1) the qualities of such a person would be subjective and 2) there is nothing about such a person that would make her necessary.
To defeat the argument, you are left with showing why premise 1 is not true. This would require you to show that the concept of a maximally great being (God) is illogical.
I do understand "possible world" although I don't necessarily agree with it. It states in the article: "...there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds." In particular I disagree with Craig's application of the concept in this case.
The key point is this: you don't get to just say that something is possible because you can imagine it, you have to demonstrate that it is possible. That is not the same as asserting that it is in fact impossible, but until you can demonstrate that it is possible, then it is pure conjecture. Craig's whole argument is completely fallacious.
Your key point does not address the argument. Regardless of your personal evaluation of the evidence for God, yes or no, is the concept of God (maximally great being) illogical? If so, why?
