(June 18, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:I'm not particularly tied to this argument (actually just started learning about it last weak), but I think that the comments here are interesting.
My comments below in Red.
[quote
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.
Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds. This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it. It is an argument from pure reason
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
We can't get to 2 because 1 is flawed, but for the sake of argument - again, Craig is making the same mistake (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that it is an intellectual error rather than a conscious deception) confusing the idea of a hypothetical reality, which only exists in the mind of the person thinking about it, and a possibility as being something that might exist in some alternate reality. Again, bald assertion, no evidence, faulty logic.
Again, you have the same error as premise 1
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
This is contingent upon Craigs own definition - which literally means that is so because he says so. What is a possible world? Does he mean an alternate universe in the multiverse? Or does he mean an abstract hypothetical - because the latter does not exist, only the idea of it exists in Craig's mind.
You should probably look to understand the argument before trying to refute it!
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Another bald assertion and non-sequitur. All we have here is Craig's say so. It's the same fallacy of conflating 'possible worlds' with alternate realities or hypothetical ideas. He's trying to manifest God directly out of his imagination.
This is definitional true, please explain why you think that it is non-sequitur. Do you not think that the actual world is a possible world?
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
This is where the supper manifests directly from your imagination into your bowl... which is great unless you actually have an appetite for real truth.
Did you not follow the logic
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
That's not really a 'therefore' as it's implicit in the previous premise, he could have skipped this one.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
And here's a rabbit I've pulled straight out of my ass! Let's call him Zeus!
[/quote]
I think that it is interesting, when some try to oppose everything in an argument concerning God (You see this also in the Kalam Cosmological Argument). I am curious if your expert opinion in psychology from the other thread, would also agree, that it's not really about logic and reason, but a need to not let a divine foot in the door.
