(August 4, 2024 at 2:17 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: In plantingas formulation there are, conceivably, all sorts of things a god can't do or can't know. I understand that in your (broadly..our) conception of omniscience and omnipotence any failure in any of these things would seem disqualifying - but that is a disagreement over definitions and not a logical fallacy - as you seem to have hit on.
It is actually is pretty easy to come up with a (so-called?) successful argument, especially with your own definitions though you do need a bit more than that. The fact that christianity has broadly failed..and for so long, and that the one it has cobbled together doesn't reflect the common sense use of terms or even the beliefs of the christian body is a sign of christian moral and intellectual decay more than anything else.
While I broadly agree, is decay the right word here, mightn't we say moral "evolution"? I realise of course if you start with the notion the morality offered is perfect, then yes decay might be the right word, but that surely is subjective. Personally I'd take the morality of 21st century democracies over that of patriarchal Bedouin societies, but this is also subjective.
Plantinga argues that an entity possesses maximal excellence if, and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This is interesting for a couple of reasons, as again morally perfect would firstly be subjective, and secondly its existence does not reflect objective reality, Epicurus argued effectively against the existence of a such a deity centuries before humans created the Christian religion.
I am of course dubious that you can define or argue something into existence. Suppose we use his argument but don't posit a deity, but a different entity like a powerful wizard, or even a perfectly cruel or evil entity, does the argument lose anything?
