RE: Why not deism?
September 30, 2019 at 7:48 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2019 at 7:51 pm by Inqwizitor.)
(September 30, 2019 at 3:34 am)Grandizer Wrote:(September 30, 2019 at 2:29 am)Inqwizitor Wrote: What is it proving, exactly? What does "God exists" even mean, really (devoid of faith)? That seems like saying, "existence exists." If "God" is simply the absolute ontological ground of all logically possible existence. In that case, that might be the only thing we can really know.
"God exists" in this context means a maximally great being exists, one that is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and necessarily so in all possible worlds. God is not simply the ground of all existence here.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Visit the link above and scroll down to the bit about Platinga and his MOA.
OK so you would agree then that omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible properties? The self-contradiction may be inherent and assumed by dividing an unlimited being into these properties, which is then delimiting, and not, unlimited. Unlimited being is unlimited being, simply, no parts, no separation into knowledge, power or goodness. Pure act, as Aristotle put it (I think). On second glance I might be conflating Malcolm and Plantinga.
